EU constitution: MEPs split on handling rejection 

The European parliament is split on the way forward for the future of the rejected EU constitution.

Divisions between national and political groups of MEPs reflect different approaches in Europe’s capitals.

Ratification of the EU constitution was halted for a ‘period of reflection’ after last year’s referendum rejections in France and the Netherlands.

Some governments and MEPs would like to find a way to keep the existing EU institutional blueprint intact because involved negotiations were needed to agree the text in June 2004.

Others, including the French government, lean towards ‘cherry-picking’ organisational elements to create a politics-light EU constitution that can be ratified without referendums.

Some capitals, Berlin and London among the number, prefer to hold a debate on how the EU tackles globalisation to build consensus around Europe’s future.

On Thursday, MEPs will vote on proposals setting out the parliament’s approach to Europe’s constitution future.

But splits have emerged between MEPs keen to keep the original text and those who argue the constitution must be revised after voters delivered resounding a ‘non’ and ‘nee’.

UK Liberal and Austrian Green MEPs Andrew Duff and Johannes Voggenhuber have drafted parliament’s proposals.

The original parliament proposals declare “a positive outcome of the period of reflection would be that the current text can be maintained”.

But the pair have been forced to recognise that the original wording does not go far enough for MEPs reluctant to ask their citizens to vote for the same constitution twice.

“[We] believe that this does not go far enough in opening up the possibility of a decision being taken… to modify the text. As it stands [the proposal] is proving not to be acceptable to a large number of MEPs from all groups, in particular from France and the Netherlands,” they write in an internal memo.

Duff and Voggenhuber are proposing a compromise retaining the current constitution text as the foundation of a new text – should the EU decide to draft a new institutional blueprint.

“If the outcome of the period of reflection is that the current text has to be improved in order to renew consensus and facilitate ratification, the 2004 constitution should in any case be used as the single basis and that its constitutional core should be retained,” states an amendment.

Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel has presented his country’s EU presidency programme to the European parliament.

A key aspect of Vienna’s turn at the EU’s six month rotating presidency will be the future of the European constitution.

Schuessel told the parliament that getting EU citizens talking about the future of the EU and European identity would be a priority.

Austria must report back to a June EU summit on the way forward in ‘period of reflection’ that suspended ratification of the constitution after French and Dutch rejection.

• Previous article
• Next article