On June 21, the European Council should establish "a road map and a clear mandate to arrive at completion of the process underway for the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty".
The German presidency of the Union prepared this summit. We all recognise the determination, competence and open-mindedness of Chancellor Angela Merkel. She had the good idea of asking each member state to provide a written reflection on the problems which ratification posed for it. After summarising their responses, the Chancellor intends to propose a "road map" with a view to completing the process of institutional reform. She explained her intentions in Strasbourg on January 17, before the European parliament: "The phase of reflection is over. We must take new decisions between now and the month of June. I commit myself to the adoption of a road map for the continuation of the process of the Constitutional Treaty before the end of the German presidency of the Council of the European Union."
This rational approach was complicated by French - and to a lesser extent Dutch - initiatives to propose an alternative solution. In the course of the French presidential campaign, and to get out of the impasse that the unfortunate referendum of 2005 created for France, the presidential candidates foresaw another solution. The Constitutional Treaty would be more or less abandoned, and replaced either by a "mini-treaty", proposed by Nicolas Sarkozy in Brussels on September 8, 2006, or a "simplified treaty" for which Nicolas Sarkozy said, in a public debate with Ségolène Royal on May 2, he had obtained the agreement of Jose Luis Zapatero, Tony Blair and Angela Merkel. The agreement of the European Council is sought on this "simplified treaty," proposed by France and Great Britain.
What would be the contents of this simplified treaty? And how would it be better suited to the European Union's urgent need for reforms?
The Constitutional Treaty was signed unanimously by the heads of state and government on October 29, 2004 and has already been ratified by 18 states, that is to say two thirds of member states, which represents a qualified majority. Four other states would like to ratify it. In a Europe that professes its desire for more democracy, this fact must not be underestimated. The ratification procedures carried out by two thirds of member states, including the vast majority of new members, deserve equal consideration with the two states who rejected the treaty, and the three who still question it. We must reflect at length before asking them to adopt a text different from the one they already voted for.
Does the sought after "simplification" aim to facilitate ratification by the few states who still hesitate, or does it in fact hide the goal of reversing certain advances in the Constitutional Treaty? This ambiguity, which explains the support of Great Britain for the simplified treaty, must be lifted.
The first two parts of the text, which concern the institutions of the Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights - and which are the only ones we presented four years ago to the European Council in Thessalonika - need no simplification.
They are relatively short: 60 articles for the first, 54 for the second, out of 448 articles in the Treaty. No one has really contested the first part, about institutions. Even in France, during and since the referendum, it was not questioned.
Nicolas Sarkozy told me he intends to have this part of the text approved, without modification, during the July parliamentary session, to prove France's determination to get back on the European convoy. I found this attitude fair and reasonable.
So there is no reason to re-open discussion on the first part of the treaty. Ms Merkel wished to exclude this first part from the discussion.
But we now hear demands to reconsider what was agreed in the first part of the Treaty.
The most surprising thing is that the British Foreign Secretary, Geoff Hoon, now wants to do away with the establishment of a European Ministry of Foreign Affairs (article 28). But article 2 of the EU Treaty of 1992 stipulates that "the Union gives itself the objective of establishing a common foreign and security policy." Someone must be responsible for carrying out that policy. The modalities of choosing the Union's Minister of Foreign Affairs - and the title! - figure in the Treaty signed in Rome by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. This demand can only be rejected.
The same holds true for the proposal to revert to the use of the terms "regulation" and "directive" - not understood by most of our citizens - in European legislative acts, instead of "European laws" and "European framework laws" which figure in the Treaty, and which are understandable to all.
As for the pitiful proposals to get rid of all European symbols - anthem, flag and motto - they would be laughable if they did not hurt our still fragile pride in feeling ourselves to be European. All use of the world "constitutional" would be banned, and replaced by the term "Treaty".
In short, the proposals in the first part of the Treaty were drawn up with care by the Convention. They constitute a coherent ensemble. Only those with ulterior motives, who would like to brake European integration, have an interest in taking it apart.
I remind you of the essential points of the treaty:
• the designation of a stable president of the Union, ending the system of rotation every semester. We must stress the selflessness of the new member states, who gave up a privilege which figured in the accession treaties;
• the nomination of a Minister of Foreign Affairs of the European Union;
• the precise definition of the respective competences of the Union and member states, to put an end to the reproach that "Europe meddles in everything";
• the establishment of normal legislative procedure, similar to that of democratic countries, centred in the European Parliament, for which the Council plays the role of second chamber;
• the confirmation that the Commission has sole power to initiate legislation;
• abandoning the rule that each member state designates a Commissioner and limiting the number of Commissioners to 18 instead of 27, to limit bureaucratic initiatives and restore the character of the "College of Commissioners";
• recognition of the right of all national parliaments to ensure the principle of subsidiarity, which is applicable to acts of the Union;
• the definition of a rule for qualified majority voting. To be adopted, a European act must be approved by 55 per cent of member states, totalling at least 65 per cent of the population. The first condition protects the least populated states. The second guarantees the democratic character of the decision. This is the equivalent of the decision procedures in states which have two chambers, a senate and an assembly.
This is a coherent whole. It has not been seriously contested for four years, except, of course, by opponents of European integration, and, in the case of Poland, by a discussion on voting rules. It was ratified by two thirds of member states. One does not see how it could be "simplified". The wisest thing would be not to touch it, and to pursue its ratification via parliament. This was what the former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, who was one of the most assiduous members of the European Convention, proposed in a recent article.
It is also the position of the European Parliament, which just approved, by 469 votes against 141, the remarkable report by Elmar Brok and Enrique Baron Crespo, opposing all modification of the institutional provisions of the Treaty.
Mr Giscard d'Estaing is the former President of the European Convention. This article was translated from French by Lara Marlowe.
Part 2 will be published tomorrow