The Period of Reflection: Which way forward for Europe?

Speakers: Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, President of the Party of European Socialists
                Wilfried Martens, President of the European People's Party
                Annemie Neyts-Uytterbroeck, President of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party 
 
Chair: Sergio Cantone, Brussels Correspondent, EuroNews
 
Date: 6 June 2006
 
On Tuesday 6 of June one year after the beginning of the ‘period of reflection’, and ten days ahead of the European council meeting at which the fate of the constitutional treaty is due to be decided, the Presidents of the three main European political parties came together to exchange ideas among themselves and with the audience, with a view to putting forward proposals as to how to solve the current institutional crisis and restore public confidence in the European project. The debate, moderated by Mr. Sergio Cantone (Euronews), focused on the need to infuse the Constitutional debate with a stronger political message and communicate the real benefits of the Constitutional treaty vis a vis the Treaty of Nice.
 
Mr. Martens, opening the panel debate, stressed above all the need to agree on a strict timetable for coming to a decision on the Constitutional treaty, as proposed by Austria’s chancellor Schuessel, currently president of the Council of Ministers. An extension of the period of reflection until 2009 without such a timetable would not bring the necessary impetus to move things forward. Martens further stressed the need for important EU projects, such as moving ahead economic growth in Europe, increased co-operation on a Common Foreign and Security Policy and the question of Asylum and Immigration. However, it would also be crucial to communicate the EU itself as a major project. This was a common task for the big European parties.
 
Mr. Rasmussen, followed up on the essential need for a European project. In the current situation people were gripped by a fear of incertitude about the future that was aggravated by fears about a European project the direction of which was unclear to them.
Instead of presenting the EU as a competitor to the national political arena, the political system should be presented as a four level picture of ‘democratic houses’. Local, regional, national and EU levels of democracy were all equally important to the political process. Their interdependence and mutual linkage should be the focal point of a political debate on the Future of Europe. On the future of the Constitutional Treaty Rasmussen argued that cherry picking should be avoided at all costs. Ratification should proceed and was likely to produce a positive outcome in Finland and also Portugal. For the Danish case it would be more difficult to predict an outcome, but even there a positive decision on the Constitutional treaty was not impossible, given a shift in recent public opinion. Rasmussen further advanced the view that in the interim period before a permanent decision on the Constitution would be taken; the policy process could be dynamised by moving more issues concerning criminal matters under the competition of justice and home affairs through the passerelle clause.
 
Mrs. Neyts in assessing the current impasse argued that this was above all a result of the decade long schizophrenia of national leaders which have blamed political misfortunes on EU failures rather than presenting them as a national responsibility. As a result of this she deemed it unsurprising that people would start to buy into this and reject new EU projects. This was aggravated by the rhetoric overkill of the Commission which had set unrealistic goals for the Lisbon Agenda. Regarding the future of the treaty Neyts, in agreement with her fellow speakers argued for continuing the ratification process. However, she also allowed for the difficulty of voting on a proposal that was likely to be changed due to the rejection of the Constitutional treaty in the Netherlands and France.
 
The discussion following the main presentation was organised around the question: ‘Why does the EU need a constitution?’. All speakers highlighted the shortcoming of the Nice Treaty currently in place. Martens especially stressed the need for a revised decision making procedure. Apart form this the benefits of a common representative for foreign relations and a presidency of the Council would be crucial in giving coherence to decision making and to project a vision of unity. Commenting on the concerns about the liberalisation of the EU Neyts stated that the EU market was not only a liberalised one but also deeply regulated. In combination with the European social model this should not be seen as a threat to welfare and prosperity. However, she suggested that fear of liberalisation and arguments for the European social model were often directed by public fears about social change. With a view to the upcoming European Council the panel members agreed that political leadership above all was the key to moving constitutional issues ahead.