FUTURE OF EUROPE: MEPS STILL DIVIDED OVER HOW TO RESCUE CONSTITUTION.

The two MEPs have drafted a report on the period of reflection on the future of Europe called by EU leaders in the wake of the rejection of the EU Constitution by French and Dutch voters in the summer. It represents the EP's contribution to shaping the series of national and EU-level debates which are supposed to be held during the reflection period. The report confirms the EP's commitment to having some form of Constitution, commenting that the "political problems and institutional weaknesses", which the Constitution was meant to address, will persist. They point out that rather than there being widespread opposition to a Constitution 62%, of French voters and 65% of Dutch wanted it renegotiated to produce a more social text. It notes that although EU leaders said the ratification process could continue, it had now encountered "insurmountable difficulties".

However, the main disagreements centre on the timing and nature of the steps to be taken over the coming years. According to the draft report, there should be "Parliamentary Forums", made up of national and European parliamentarians, to debate and shape political conclusions. The first parliamentary forum should take place in spring 2006 ahead of the June meeting of EU leaders to hear reports from the Dutch and French parliaments on the No votes. The aim of this dialogue would be to make "comprehensive recommendations" to the Council on how the Union should find its way out of the crisis. Other parliamentary fora should address "priority questions" about the future of Europe including:

- What is the goal of European integration?

- What role should Europe have in the world?

- What is the future of the European social and economic model?

- How do we define the boundaries of the EU?

The report recommends that the conclusions of the period of reflection should be drawn in the second half of 2007 and that a clear decision should be reached at that stage about whether improvements to the Constitution are needed and how they should be agreed. If this "European dialogue" decides that the Constitution needs to be modified, the negotiation should treat the 2004 Constitution as a "good first draft". If there is a decision to revise the text extensively, there should be a mandate for a new Convention (made up of representatives of national governments, national and European parliaments) to be held in 2008. In earlier discussions, Mr Voggenhuber was in...