Brussels, 16-17.02.2004

Giuliano Amato, former Vice-Chairman of the Convention, did not hide his fears when he addressed the EP Constitutional Affairs Committee on Tuesday: "The idea of approving the European Constitution in the second half of this year is a trap into which the project could fall and which would pose grave risks to the enlarged Europe", he said. In the absence of the Convention's former chairman, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, held up in Paris by an airline strike, MEPs discussed the current position regarding the IGC with the two former Vice-Chairmen, Mr Amato and Mr Dehaene, following on from their discussion with Commissioner Michel Barnier on Monday.

Mr Amato and Mr Barnier backed an idea put forward by several MEPs, including Olivier Duhamel (PES, F) and Carlos Carnero González (PES, E), that the European Parliament could formally adopt the draft Constitution drawn up by the Convention to ensure that this fundamental document did not get diluted by the passage of time or the striking of deals. Several speakers also supported the idea of a "rendez-vous clause" to break the logjam at the IGC by postponing the changeover to a new qualified majority system.

According to Commissioner Barnier it is "possible and necessary" to reach agreement on the European Constitution before the June elections. Only a small number of questions remain to be resolved, "which we know by heart". He welcomed the fact that the Irish Presidency had worked "intelligently" and "without re-opening this Pandora's box". He said he did not hold dogmatic views about the double majority system proposed by the Convention for Council decisions (a majority of states representing at least three-fifths of the population). He added that the transition to this new system could be postponed, for example until 2009 or 2014. At all events, he believed it was important not to "offer to the public the spectacle of an insoluble or endless quarrel". Like Mr Amato, Mr Barnier was concerned about the time that was passing, which he said "was blurring and eroding the spirit" of the Convention. In his view it would be no easier to reach agreement in November than in April.

According to Mr Amato himself, "an agreement is important but the clarity of the texts and the clauses on which one seeks to reach agreement are no less important". After all, the European Constitution was not only a symbol but a tool of government. Mr Amato was in favour of a transitional solution for the majority system within the Council, which could require a population threshold of 60% for certain sensitive topics.

Jean-Luc Dehaene pointed out that, even if agreement on the Constitution was reached before 1 May, the enlarged Union would have to start work on the basis of the Nice Treaty. He believed it was more important to know that a decision could be taken by qualified majority than to establish the method for calculating that majority, although he added that the system drawn up by the Convention had the advantage of being clear and comprehensible.

Inigo Mendez de Vigo (EPP-ED, E), who led the Parliament delegation to the Convention and represented Parliament at the start of the IGC, wondered what could happen between now and May that would enable an agreement to be reached. The more time passed, the more it would be difficult to convince the public that the Constitution was a document that was laying a new foundation for Europe. He therefore proposed that the Constitution be adopted as approved by the Convention, while postponing any decision on qualified majority voting until 2009.

Still on the subject of qualified majority voting, Richard Corbett (PES, UK) pointed out that Poland's weight in the system put forward by the Convention (a relative weight of 8.5%) was in fact greater than its weight in the system laid down in the Nice Treaty (8.4%), to which Poland nevertheless remained attached. To overcome this obstacle, Mr Corbett suggested a new compromise, on similar lines to the one reached on another occasion at Ioannina: each time a decision was adopted in Council under the Convention's method when it could have been blocked under the Nice mechanism, the countries in the minority could call for negotiations to continue until an agreement were reached. Andrew Duff (ELDR, UK) also put forward a compromise solution, under which the double majority envisaged by the Convention could consist of a threshold of 55%, of both Member States and population, instead of the 50% and 60% respectively proposed by the Convention.

Press enquiries:
Enrico D'Ambrogio - tel. (32-2) 28 42591
Mailto:constit-press@europarl.eu.int

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT%2BPRESS%2BNR-20040217-1%2B0%2BDOC%2BXML%2BV0//EN&LEVEL=4&NAV=S#SECTION1