Proposition 51K1744

Projet de loi portant assentiment au Traité établissant une constitution pour l'Europe, et à l'Acte final, faits à Rome le 29 octobre 2004.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

March 15, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Constitution international agreement

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

May 19, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, colleagues, I have the honour today to report to you on the debate we held in the Committee on Foreign Relations on the approval of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.

Following the procedure followed, I must first and foremost point out that Ms. Nagy van Ecolo regretted that the discussion of the draft law coincided with a very important debate in the Committee on Home Affairs.

The introductory presentation was given by Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel De Gucht who referred to the presentation of the Prime Minister in the Committee on Foreign Relations and Land Defense of the Senate. The Prime Minister emphasized the following important elements of the Treaty.

First, he emphasized the democratic legitimate establishment of the Constitution through the Convention which was composed of politicians from all countries and parliaments and which has listened to the broad civil society. The final result adopted by the Intergovernmental Conference corresponds for the most part to the proposals of the Convention.

Second, the Constitution stands for crucial principles and values in Europe. It provides an updated definition of the basic principles and objectives, namely sustainable development, a corrected market economy, fundamental rights and non-discrimination and the fight against poverty. The Constitution incorporates the fundamental right in the Charter and provides for the possibility of EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Third, this Constitution makes the European Union more democratic. The right of citizens’ initiative on the basis of 1 million signatures is introduced. The unanimity rule is repealed for many matters. For example, a qualified majority vote will be held in areas such as immigration, asylum, external border control, police cooperation and judicial cooperation, but not in fiscal and social matters. The European Parliament will play an important role. This extends the co-decision procedure, further develops the principle of subsidiarity and extends the competence of the Court of Justice.

Fourth, the Constitution makes the EU more transparent.

Fifth, through the Constitution, the political force becomes more powerful. In addition to the wider application of the qualified majority, it should be emphasized that the Commission will be reduced in 2014 and that the new calculation of the qualified majority should facilitate the decision-making process.

With regard to social policy, a horizontal social clause is introduced, a legal basis for establishing the necessary conditions for the services of general interest. The EU has the legal personality. The foreign policy of the Union will be represented by one person who will also become Vice-President of the Committee and President of the Council on Foreign Relations. With regard to the Economic and Monetary Union, the Commission will be given a greater role. The modalities of the enhanced cooperation will be adjusted and eased. However, in the common foreign and security policy, unanimousness remains the rule.

Sixth, European citizens will be given more opportunities to participate.

Until then this introductory statement.

In the debate that followed, four people’s representatives spoke: Mr. Tastenhoye and Mr. Moriau, Mrs. Nagy and me.

Mr. Tastenhoye of the Flemish Interest began to regret his circumstantial presentation with the fact that there was no real parliamentary debate on the European Constitution and that there was no popular consultation. He also asks why a larger information campaign was not set up in Belgium. He opposes the European Commission that spends a budget of 12.5 million euros to promote the Constitution. It thus undoubtedly supports the supporters of the Constitution and thus defeats the opponents.

Mr. Tastenhoye also disagrees with the way the European Constitution was created. For example, the European Convention was by no means a democratically legitimate forum. Furthermore, the simple composition of the convention was already in the way of a real debate between the advocates and opponents of more Europe. The debate focused only on the transfer of further powers to the European level, never on the transfer of powers back to the Member States.

Regarding the content of the text, Mr Tastenhoye regrets that the Constitution denies the existence of fundamental elements of European heritage. There is no mention of the Jewish Christian roots of Europe. In addition, he sees in the treaty a Constitution of and for a European federation. For him, the European Union must essentially remain intergovernmental. He also regrets that EU law prevails over the law of the Member States.

As regards the integration of the Charter, Mr. Tastenhoye said it is a further step towards a full-fledged federal Europe and ⁇ not the protection of real rights and freedoms in the face of the official Europe. According to him, the European Constitution is unreadable and uncontrollable. A radical clarification, a simplification of existing treaties is an absolute requirement. There is no clear limitation of powers and clear boundaries in the Constitution.

No territory or domain remains untouched by the Union. He also says that the big countries will get more power at the expense of the medium and small countries. Turkey will have the most power. Finally, Mr. Tastenhoye says that the European Union is evolving into a very heterogeneous society where its own rules are no longer respected.

CD&V declares to be a strong supporter of this constitution because it is another step forward in the European integration process. The European Constitution should be a tool to win back the citizens for Europe. This Constitution is, after all, a text that brings clarity and transparency into the institutional and legal curvature that has existed so far. The constitutional structure of the Union is now clearly defined. At the same time, it is a statement that defines our common values. Without these shared values, Europe cannot come up with a common policy and citizens cannot identify with their own Europe.

Here, CD&V captures a probably inevitable paradox. On the one hand, we strive for a larger and common European whole. On the other hand, there is a clear tendency to more small scale due to lack of feeling with the larger whole. The lack of feeling with the wider European whole is currently causing euroscepticism to prevail. Referendums in different Member States are not strange to this. How can people vote for something they don’t know what it is? The national governments have defended the European Constitution with insufficient courage. In the event of a French "no" for CD&V, the ratification process must be continued without prejudice. The dynamics created by the Convention must ⁇ not be lost.

Once the Constitution has been ratified in all Member States, it must have a concrete effect. For CD&V there are five priorities for the further expansion of the European Union.

First, a Europe that provides the necessary economic impulses. Europe has a solid strategy to make the economy more competitive and dynamic. However, this strategy is not sufficiently implemented by many Member States, including Belgium.

Second, a Europe with a strong social dimension. CD&V is and remains, in the European context, the advocate and guardian of the so-called Rhineland model and wants to put social emphasis in Europe especially in relation to employment, public services, health care and poverty reduction.

Third, a Europe that tackles organized crime. Belgium is a country with large border regions, as is the case with most Member States. Trafficking, drug trafficking, border crime, circular criminal gangs, and the like occur. Europe clearly needs to be given more powers and resources to engage in the fight against cross-border crime.

Fourth, a Europe with its own full-fledged asylum and immigration policies. Maybe nowhere is Europe’s potential greater than in the field of asylum policy. Only a European asylum policy can make the fight against illegal immigration credible in a humane way. Equally important, however, is that Europe ensures that those who are entitled to protection receive protection in the best possible conditions and that work is done of a European system based on quota-driven economic immigration.

Fifth, a Europe that plays a strong role in the world. CD&V therefore advocates that Europe give itself the necessary resources to address the major challenges and threats in the world and that the European Union seeks to have its own representation and its own headquarters in the main multilateral organisations, especially in the UN and NATO.

Mr. Moriau of the PS declares that his group will support the constitutional treaty, even if it is a combattive and vigilant yes. The PS supports the European Constitution because European integration provides guarantees for peace and democratic stability.

Another reason is that European integration has brought many benefits to European citizens. For example, according to Mr. Moriau, the EU is a school example of a human society that knows how to reconcile a certain economic prosperity with a sound social protection.

However, there are a number of aspects that are too little addressed in the current European project. Thus, we struggle with too weak and insufficient sustainable economic growth and our social system is under pressure on the pension scheme and public services. There is great pressure being exercised to liberalize everything. Additionally, citizens’ distrust is attributed to the fact that European leaders are not able to reach agreement on large and forward-looking projects.

Mr. Moriau argues that there is no other credible alternative but to further expand the European Union in order to protect our model of a solidary society against economic globalization. The EU has a regulatory role. For example, there are European directives on gender equality in terms of access to employment, wages and pensions. In the areas of environment, consumer protection, public health and animal welfare, the EU also exercises a ⁇ strong regulatory influence. The solidarity policy also has a positive impact on a European scale.

The constitutional treaty is therefore a step forward from the current situation. However, Mr Moriau is disappointed on a number of points: the unanimity in tax and social matters and the specific nature of the general service in relation to the principle of free competition is not recognized as such.

The two review procedures included in the Convention are extremely logical. There must be unanimous support for enhanced cooperation in defence and foreign policy. There is no significant progress on socio-economic policy. Finally, Mr. Moriau states that although the constitutional treaty is not perfect, his group will still support the text.

As the last speaker in the debate, Ms. Nagy van Ecolo regrets that the promised big debate will not take place. It asks whether the budget for the information campaign has been crushed in budgetary control. It wants to disprove a whole series of untruths in connection with the Constitution. Thus the text is not more difficult to read than many other legal texts. There are also many positive innovations compared to existing treaties, especially on the social level, on fundamental rights and citizen participation.

The text contains elements that benefit democracy within the Union, namely the right to petition, the information obligation of the Council, the extension of the co-decision procedure and the possibility for citizens to appeal to the Court of Strasbourg in some cases. Ms Nagy, in particular, makes a reservation against articles contained in the Constitution which have been taken from the series of existing treaties. It is only partially true that the Union will now work more efficiently.

Furthermore, it believes that difficulties arise in connection with the evolution and revision of the Convention, as those procedures require unanimity. Ms Nagy was especially favored for the mechanism of enhanced cooperation, so that the enlargement does not lead to blockages. It also provides a number of foundations and resources for carrying out a genuine common foreign policy.

Despite skepticism about many aspects of the constitutional treaty, she does not believe in the myth that the rejection of the text would lay the germ for a new Europe. Ecolo supports the European Constitution, but rejects a too liberal Europe. The Yes should encourage the use of the available resources for the construction of a social Europe that creates employment and cares for the environment. The entire draft law is then adopted unanimously. Here, Mr. Speaker, is the report of the debate on the European Constitution.

Thank you, Mrs. Muylle, for your excellent report.

As for the course of our work, the Prime Minister is present, he was also committed to it. I believe you will be with us until around eighteen o’clock, Mr. Prime Minister. I propose to start with a first round of interventions, a group speech. I already have a first series of inscriptions, in the following order: MM. Van Rompuy, Wathelet, Pinxten, Giet, Van der Maelen, Bacquelaine, Tastenhoye and Mrs Nagy. After this first round, we will see what time it is and when the Prime Minister could intervene to comply with the deadlines that have been set.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I am pleased that we are able to decide today here in the House on the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty and that this does not happen by referendum.

Imagine that in May we should have voted on the future of Europe in the midst of the discussion on Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. Per ⁇ there would have been more talk about the future of the country rather than about the future of our continent.

The voters must take responsibility in a parliamentary democracy. Today, in a number of countries, risks are taken with that Constitution by holding referendums, which threaten to be more about domestic than foreign policy.

Risks should not be taken with one of the three largest, leading thoughts in politics of the last century, in addition to the universal voting right for men and for women and in addition to social security. All three, Europe, universal voting rights and social security, come from the tragedy of the First and especially the Second World War. If history can be made, then these three great revolutions prove that.

Again, Europe is too important to be the playball of experiments with political decision-making or so-called civil democracy.

With your permission, I would like to ask a question.

Colleague Van Rompuy, did I understand you correctly? Do you think that consulting the public on such an important matter, because it is a very important matter, which will determine our future to a large extent, is a risk, and do you, in other words, believe that the public should not have any involvement on such an important matter? This surprises me greatly.

We are the elect of the people and we must take our responsibility. If I see the course of the discussion in France and in the Netherlands, Mr. Van den Eynde, then it is not about Europe. It is not about the Constitution. It’s about Chirac and Balkenende, but it’s not about what it should be. These referendums will answer questions that have not been asked to the people.

The Flemish Christian Democrats will pass the European Constitution from the federal opposition. We will not hesitate, as was done at the time with the Treaty of Amsterdam by a part of the then opposition. Europe first came into existence in the early 1950s when there were six Christian Democrats prime ministers in the European Community. We continue this great tradition.

However, I am well aware that the Flaming and Western Europeans, especially the young generation, today cannot be convinced only by the argument of peace. Young people today have parents who have never known war. Today we must demonstrate to the calculating citizen that the Union represents an added value in the struggle for greater security, more jobs, greater prosperity, better control of migration flows and influence in global politics to defend our interests and our ideals. As a European citizen, that citizen must be able to preserve its identity in terms of language and culture.

For Flanders and for Belgium, this calculation is a very simple matter. Just the fact that Brussels is the capital of Europe creates a huge spillover effect in the broad atmosphere around the capital. Without the euro market and without the euro, we will only be impoverished. If we fail to persuade them, there will be room for demagogues and populists from the left and right. In this period of fear and uncertainty on the social, economic, ecological, social, ethical, philosophical and religious levels, even the calculating citizen willingly lends an ear to all the arguments that raise threats and fear: the Europe of disloyal competition, of the countries with low wages, the Europe of the loss of identity of languages and peoples. The modern citizen must be shown where his advantage lies. I wonder, by the way, where is that European moloch, whose budget is barely as big as 1% of the European domestic product.

All governments in our country spend an amount that is almost as big as 50% of our GDP. Of that modest 1% then almost half goes to agriculture because the sector is highly Europeanized, as one of the few, by the way. A British colleague and friend from the European Parliament says the Commission has less staff than Leeds’ City Council. The Constitution, by the way, makes the Union a democracy with a Parliament that actually has more powers than many national parliaments. As a budget minister in the 1990s, I saw how the European Parliament really negotiated the budget with the Council of Ministers and with the European Commission. They formed a great power. At the national level, a government, whatever the government, has nothing to fear the Parliament on budget. The opposition is mouth-death and the majority must follow with patience. The Constitution now gives the European Parliament power over the entire budget, over all spending. It has not yet had to maintain a government, but it now has the power to elect the President of the Commission, despite whom it envy.

The Constitution now also involves national parliaments in decision-making at the European level. All EU legislation will be subject to a prior review by the national parliaments. They will have to receive proposals from the European Union, from the Commission, and therefore not from national governments, in sufficient time to discuss them with their ministers before the Council adopts a position, and they will also have the right to object to draft legislation if they consider that it does not fall within the competence of the European Union.

The Constitution also mentions the term social market economy that Christian Democrats have used for sixty years as the perfect expression of their views on economic order. The word competition is used twenty-seven times and the word social is used ninety-nine times. The best social Europe is one that creates work. The free trade in private goods has proved to be a source of prosperity and employment. Fair competition leads to lower prices and is good for the consumer, the big forgotten among all opponents of market action. The golden 1960s, of Flanders in particular, had to do with the opening of the borders. Let us not forget that the export of our country is as large as 85% of the national gross domestic product. Belgium and the 15 EU countries have a trade surplus with Eastern and Central Europe. We thus gain wealth in this way, while the talk of the town is always about relocalizations. The best response to this, in relation to relocation, is the so-called Lisbon process, which should lead to more innovation and a high employment rate. However, this cannot be resolved by the Constitution, it is primarily a task of the national authorities. Therefore, it is a pity that our country is losing competitiveness according to the National Bank and the VBO and that our employment rate is growing slower than in neighboring countries.

Again, socio-economic policies remain primarily a matter of the Member States. Scandinavian countries have demonstrated that it is possible to have a high level of social protection, even with a high social burden, and yet to have a high level of economic growth and employment.

The Constitution has nothing to do with the so-called Bolkestein Directive. It is, by the way, the European Parliament that is now engaging in this matter in a way that we are not used to within our national borders. On the other hand, the Constitution itself recognises and respects the principle of access to services of general economic interest as set out in national laws and practices.

The Maastricht Treaty created the euro, the largest global monetary revolution in the last 60 years, after the disconnection of the US dollar from gold. There is no monetary stability without budgetary discipline. Therefore, I continue to regret the fact that some major countries did not actually take advantage of the earlier version of the pact and that the Commission even had to go to the Court of Justice to get the right. It was the power of the strongest and not an example for the rule of law. The pact, like the Constitution, should not become a vodje paper if it does not work well for the country, as in the country the Constitution should not be a vodje paper if it does not work well for political parties.

If the Constitution is not ratified by some countries, this would be especially detrimental to the role that the Union can play in the world. The European Minister of Foreign Affairs, appointed for five years, and the elected President of the Council, appointed for two and a half years, are figures that must embody a as common foreign policy as possible, even if it remains politically subject to the rule of unanimousness. Even the United States of America would ⁇ ly find not approving the Constitution a bad thing, as a strong European partner is now needed to come up with stable solutions in the world. Their

If too many countries fail to ratify the Constitution, solutions must be sought to safeguard at least those achievements of that important chapter on foreign policy. Which foreign policy should be, of course, the Constitution does not determine. It will have to be a mix of our ideals — the union is a union of values — and our interests. Foreign policy is more than just saying no to the Americans regarding their policy on Iraq, Iran, China or Russia. Foreign policy is more than waiting for the United States to act as it did in the former Yugoslavia. The Union must make a specific contribution to world politics, ⁇ in rapidly shifting patterns of power. Think of China. Our role in Ukraine was a recent and good example of a policy that chooses not only a conservative policy of stability and fear of another power, but for a kordate defense of freedom and democracy in Europe.

That is why the articles on security in the Constitution are so important. The clause of mutual assistance in the event of aggression implies a mandatory solidarity. Structured cooperation means that countries can choose to manage a defence budget together, analogous to what happened with the euro. This legal framework is also very innovative. Let us hope that this is only the beginning of an evolution.

No effective foreign policy is possible without a military instrument. The fact that the new countries of Eastern and Central Europe attach more importance to NATO than to their security within the European Union says a lot about our excessive caution in defending our values during the Cold War.

A common foreign policy should also be able to politically transform our efforts in development cooperation, which are so much larger than those of the United States. It is not enough to be humanitarian. We must also be able to play an appropriate political role, ⁇ in zones of crisis, of war or of civil war.

Now that we are talking about the values, I have to talk about the so-called preamble. In the version first presented to the Convention, one had managed to ignore the role of Christianity in the formation of European civilization and to speak only of the Greco-Roman civilization and of the Enlightenment. It must be done. Fortunately, this negativism has been eliminated. The new text is vague and unspeakable about the cultural, religious and humanistic traditions of Europe. About half of the European population lives in countries whose constitution explicitly refers to God and Christianity. For the other half, it is the opposite. There is no reference in Belgium. This is not the case in the United States either. For me, there did not even need to be a preamble, but if it is there, it must be completely and historically correct.

I personally attach more importance to Article 52 of the Constitution, which literally states that the Union respects the status of churches and religious associations and communities in the Member States under national law. The Constitution, says the text, does not affect this. The Union shall conduct an open, transparent dialogue with the churches and social organizations, recognizing their identity and their specific contribution. This is a separate dialogue, outside of which with the civil society in which another place of the Constitution is provided. Belgium, as the only country, was able to make a reservation against this passage. Fortunately, we were isolated and the text remained standing.

The European Constitution is a continuous process. The text is not the end point, nor is it the case for the Belgian Constitution. The movement towards more Europe on the one hand, and towards more powers and resources to the counties within Belgium on the other, will continue. Treaty after treaty comes more integration, with a breakdown though in Nice, a few years ago.

It is clear that there are still too many powers that are subject to the rule of unanimity and unanimity. For example, taxation, social security, foreign policy and defence are not subject to the qualified majority. Isn’t this a little hypocritical? I am not convinced that many, including in our country, would unwaveringly accept a European harmonisation on taxation that is less or even not progressive. The discussion on the Bolkestein Directive also shows how one is attached to its own national social legislation.

Fortunately, there is an escape route: the closer cooperation to which Member States can move under certain conditions. The threat of a group of countries going through this could create additional pressure to make progress with the twenty-five Member States as a whole. The mechanism can therefore also have a deterrent effect, in addition to being an additional instrument.

It is a pity that this Constitution has not come for the enlargement with the ten member states. If the Constitution would eventually gain insufficient support, we would fall back to the Treaty of Nice and the Union is less adapted to a decision-making process with so many countries. The most logical thing was that there was first flooring and then only expansion.

It was also a mistake to start negotiations with Turkey before the adoption of the constitution was completed. It has only given arguments to the eurosceptics and the opponents of the euro.

If the Constitution fails, the negotiations should be suspended, according to my political party. In essence, my political party is still not convinced that Turkey meets all the political conditions of democracy and human rights.

Finally, the question that concerns many today is this: what if other countries would not approve the Constitution in addition to the United Kingdom? The possibility that two founding countries would say no was never considered even in a catastrophe scenario. On the contrary, some of those countries were already playing with the idea of a kind of avant-garde that would go beyond European integration.

The best thing is to wait, convince and hope. Per ⁇ the adagio now applies: "solve the problems when they come up." One of my teachers in politics said in that connection, by the way, "Every election has its surprise."

The Flemish Christian Democrats will with conviction approve this Constitution.

Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, today, what a long road has already been taken by Europe! I was born in Europe and I am lucky to be part of this generation that can no longer even imagine a conflict between France and Germany, a conflict within this European Union. This long journey, initiated first by this search for peace and then towards cooperation in very specific sectors such as coal, steel, Euratom, and then, this common market, this European Economic Community, this single currency, all this achievement is already enormous. Nevertheless, we have the impression that Europe is breathing, that Europe seems dull, why? Per ⁇ because this European project is based on three essential elements: - it is an ideal, this quest to go ever further towards this integration within the framework of a dynamic; - it is a mode of international government quite sui generis, quite new. It was customary in international law, and it is always the case, to work essentially intergovernmentally. Here, there was a plus, there was the community way; - it is also great European figures who have pulled this Europe upwards, towards more integration.

Now, today, we feel that the ideal, that dynamic that sought to ⁇ goals (peace, prosperity, the common market, the single currency, and more difficultly the common foreign policy and the constitution of a common army), is beginning to crumble. We can no longer ⁇ these goals, this ideal that we set ourselves and that we would like to ⁇ .

Then, at the level of the type of international government, at the level of the community mode that goes away from the purely intergovernmental mode, we also feel that the facts have changed. These institutions, this institutional model based on the Commission, the Council and the Parliament are changing because Europe is no longer a six-country Europe. There are no longer three big states and three small countries, all this has evolved. There has been this continuous “stretching” of all our institutions, but today the situation has fundamentally changed. We are therefore witnessing this sense of opacity, of less democracy within Europe.

Furthermore, there have been those enthusiastic leaders for Europe (Monnet, Shuman, Adenauer, Spaak, de Gasperi, Giscard, Schmidt, Brandt, Kohl, Mitterrand, Delors), but today it feels like it is breathing out. This can be seen in the reactions of some prime ministers returning from negotiations. Remember, after the Treaty of Nice, we’ve seen Tony Blair say when leaving the plane “I won”. I went to defend the interests of the British – European interests no matter – I kept up. There has been no progress towards more European integration. I have won! It becomes a game! These are sovereignist reflexes, reflexes at the level of nations, and no longer this search continues to go further towards this European interest, towards this greater European integration.

And yet we need Europe, everyone can agree. Europe represents only 500 million people: that is little today in the world. We therefore need this European cohesion because Europe has its ideas, its own functioning to promote in the world, whether it is this search for fair trade, with this spirit turned to the states that experience more difficulties, with this willingness to impose negotiation as a way of managing international conflicts, this willingness to always seek the synthesis between its three components - social, economic and environmental -, this continuous search for sustainable development, its universal rules on health and work. Europe must be able to promote its system: I am deeply convinced that it is today the best system.

Will the Constitution resolve all these issues? Will the Constitution allow us to have those great European leaders that, it is true, we miss a little today? Of course not!

Does the Constitution set us this ideal that will re-establish this dynamic within the European Union? It seems to me that the Constitution better defines these goals, re-balances the social aspect, the environmental aspect with the economic balance. At the same time, the fundamental aspect of this Constitution is that it marks advances on the question of the mode of European government. Our institutions have been profoundly changed.

The Constitution is a good thing. Obviously it is not miraculous and it will not solve everything, but this Constitution is good.

As I said earlier, it re-balances the objectives of the European Union by turning them more socially and environmentally oriented.

It also enables the Union to give it its institutions in order to be united and to impose itself at the international level over other great powers, already well established or emerging. This Constitution gives us this European identity through symbols, through hymns, this European identity, this desire to feel deeply European.

It also allows us to create this space of freedom and common justice and to go further in these matters.

It also allows us to put an end to failures in the framework of negotiations: Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice were not major treaties, while this Constitution makes us feel a willingness to go further, towards more integration. The failure of these negotiations must be stopped.

Finally, this European Constitution allows us to move forward in three directions from the institutional point of view, from the point of view of the European mode of government.

First, towards more democratization: through the transparency of the work within the Council, by the strengthening of the European Parliament, by the increased role of national parliaments, by this Charter of Fundamental Rights which must be the basis of all the rights of Europeans, which these Europeans will be able to invoke directly, by this democratization, by this opening of Europe to the people, with in particular also this right of petitioning.

The second is the efficiency within the European Union. The qualified majorities are not revised, there is no new “stretching”, but a new mode, based on concrete elements, population and states. This Presidency of the Council, this Minister of Foreign Affairs, these people will be able to put oil in the rods of the European Union in order to make it more effective. Then there will be a simplification through a single text. Should all three parties be joined together? Per ⁇ not, but now that we have this fundamental text, it must become our reference, for all, at the European level.

Finally, these enhanced cooperations are also simplified and extended to other subjects, including defence. Countries that want to go faster than others will now be able to move further in these enhanced cooperations. I believe that we can trust Belgium to move ever further in the direction of European integration.

If some are not convinced by these positive elements, one should also say yes because one cannot say no. Such a refusal would mean a retreat, a new failure. In addition, the arguments invoked by the supporters of the No—Mr. Van Rompuy cited a few: Bolkestein, public services, increased competition in the common market — would not be met if the European Constitution was not voted. We would remain with one text that everyone agrees to say is the bad one, namely the Treaty of Nice.

Let’s put together all these positive points offered by this Constitution because we need Europe — I said it recently — but we must also want Europe. To want Europe is to talk about it, to make sure that citizens do not always have a tendency to reject it, it is to have the will to say that the European project is worth existing, it is to succeed in the enlargement – it may have come too early, like Mr. Van Rompuy said it just recently, but he is there and we must succeed. We need to invest in these states in order for this enlargement to be a new success, as we did for Spain, Portugal and Greece. This enlargement must unite Europe rather than divide it.

It is for all of these reasons that my group today will say an unambiguous yes to this project.

I would like to quote you a sentence at the end of my speech: "That is why I approve of this one, because I do not expect anything better, and because I am not sure that this one is not the best." This willingness to challenge, this willingness to say to ourselves that this text can serve as a tool for us to make this Europe a true Europe even more integrated than it is today, it was Benjamin Franklin who uttered it when he said this yes to the American Constitution presented following the Philadelphia Convention. I want to believe in this European challenge. I want to believe in more European integration and I am convinced that this will only be possible with the instruments provided by this European Constitution. I repeat it, our yes will therefore be an unambiguous yes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, first of all, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the rapporteur for her report. I have been able to see in the last few days, during a mission, that she has worked very hard on this.

We will discuss the European Constitution this afternoon. We all find this obvious, just as we find it obvious that this is being debated in France and that in the Netherlands, and ⁇ also in other countries, a debate is coming.

However, it is worth noting that today we are all talking spontaneously about a European Constitution, while four years ago, in the run-up to Laken, that was not so obvious at all. After all, I remember very well that in the discussions about Laken’s text on the C word it was said that it should not be pronounced: Don’t mention the C word. That was just four years ago. Today, the word C is pronounced without problems, including in France, the Netherlands and in the other Member States.

So it is already a very positive evolution that we have a debate about the European Constitution and that this debate is held across all Member States. It indicates that the European Constitution has a great symbolic value and is also important for Europeans.

I do not want to talk about whether it is a constitution, a treaty or a treaty-right constitution. However, I would like to note, since some abstain from the Constitution as an ordinary treaty, that the text is indeed a Constitution, even in my conviction, both in terms of origin, creation and substance and content and abstraction of the contractual form.

Is it a perfect text? Of course, this is not a perfect text. This was also stated by the previous speakers. Of course it was our wish, across most party boundaries in the hemisphere, that would be more possible with a qualified majority. It has already been pointed out that the social aspect falls out and that, even in the field of taxation, voting by qualified majority is not possible.

Sometimes I hear that Europe is more an economic project than a social project. Well, if we put two things side by side, namely the way of voting, on the one hand, and the speed with which Europe has developed economically as well as monetary, on the other hand, it is good to ask ourselves whether one could not have to do with the other. We might wonder whether precisely the fact that it is easier to decide with a qualified majority on the economic level does not make Europe progress faster economically and monetary than on the social level.

I think it’s good that our government—we all here—has always pledged to extend the voting by qualified majority.

Of course, there are shortcomings in many other areas. The revision of the Constitution is too hard and too rigid. Everyone knows that. I know that the Chairman of the Convention, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, has the dream that it will be a constitution for 50 years. I personally do not believe in this, but I think it would have been a good thing if the revision, ⁇ of the third part on European politics and on European politics, had been easier.

The great importance of the text that precedes is that, of course, it is not really short but it still says very clearly what the European Union stands for. He says very clearly in the first parts what the values and the fundamental principles on which the construction is built are. He also says that in Europe and in the European Union we have fundamental rights that we want to insert in our Constitution. I think — I will discuss this further later — that the text, as he presents today, meets the three criteria set four years ago, Mr. Prime Minister, in Laken. It had to become a constitution that would be democratic and transparent and that would guarantee efficiency.

I would like to talk about this democratic element. This is a little overlooked, but it may well be a good indication of the way the European Union works today. I have experienced between 40 and 50 European agricultural and fishing rides in a previous life. There was then and there is today voting with a qualified majority. That in itself is fine. There is also the possibility — and it is also the case — that the European Parliament is consulted. There is no codecision. I must tell you that I cannot remember that I have not had a single question, a single proposal, a single interpellation in this House concerning those 40 to 50 European Agricultural Councils — in which there were some important councils, among others ahead of Berlin.

However, this policy is not only about agriculture, which also affects millions of European citizens, but it is also about more than 40% of the European budget and it also affects issues related to public health, food security, environment, and so on.

If we look at another area, the common trade policy, we find that today, with the democratic content, the situation is even worse. Although the European trade policy is voted by a qualified majority, the European Parliament does not even have the right to be consulted, let alone that the European Parliament could decide in a co-decision procedure.

In the committee discussion, some pointed out the fairly quick treatment in the committee. I think this is right, but it must also be said that everyone has had the opportunity to speak out. It is good that today we have a somewhat deeper debate about the European Constitution.

It would have been even better in my opinion, in which I differ in opinion from the previous speakers, if one could have presented this great project, this dream, to the Belgian population. The classic argument for not doing that is that the referendum is about something else. In fact, it comes down to the fact that people do not know much about it. Therefore, they should not be bothered with this. We, as enlightened parliamentarians, will decide in their place. You do not hear me say that a referendum on everything should be held continuously, but I cannot get rid of the impression, no matter how delicate it is in France and the Netherlands, that there is at least a large public debate there today about Europe and about the future of the European Union. If we could have held such a referendum with us, the result would likely have been that a vast majority is in favor of the Constitution. This would, of course, also send a significant signal to our neighbors. We continue to regret that we have not been able to hold a public consultation on this subject. We think this would have been very positive, precisely for that great European project.

Strange about the debate in the committee, which will soon be revealed, was that some still appear to be skeptical about Europe and the European Constitution anyway and despite everything. If they are skeptical about Europe, they must actually vote yes. They will have a different Europe. Then they will have a European Constitution and a better, more democratic, more efficient and more transparent Europe. So I would say that anyone who is not happy with Europe today can vote for the European Constitution.

I still find it strange that some people oppose the European Constitution. Of course, they have other reasons for this. However, I can hardly imagine that one of the existing treaty texts for the European Union, such as the Treaty of Rome, the Act of Unity, later supplemented with the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice, says that they are fine, ready, clear and transparent, while a cat does not find its boy in them.

I can hardly explain to people that in the European Union there are two communities that have legal personality, that there is another entity, the Union, which does not have it, that there are two communities that use the community method and that there are two pillars that work intergovernmentally. I can hardly understand that.

I can hardly understand that people say that inserting the Charter in the Constitution is not a good thing. Do you think that enforcing rights for European citizens is not a good thing? It seems to me a good thing that we give in the Constitution a number of rights to European citizens, which are also enforceable for them.

Those who oppose the Constitution at the same time say that Europe is better not to be too solidary. After all, it is obvious that, when we approve the Constitution, there is a text that contains more solidarity than the existing treaties and is a bit more social. Jacques Delors, when he was confronted with the observation that the word "competition" appeared twenty-seven times in the text, in order to shake him in the shoes so that it would be a liberal project - which of course may be - replicated that the word "social" appeared eighty-nine times in the text. Probably he had it counted. You will not hear me say that this is sufficient evidence, but I think everyone agrees that the text of the Constitution provides for more solidarity among the citizens of the European Union.

The text of the European Constitution also ensures that police services can better cooperate, that free movement of persons is accompanied, not with less security, but with more security. Some may not like this, but we are in favour of it.

Those who say no to the text of the European Constitution are also clearly saying no to more democracy in Europe, who say no to more transparency in Europe, and who say no to more efficiency in Europe. These are, however, the core concepts of the Laken summit.

We are very pleased with the European Constitution. We are especially pleased because we know that four years ago in Laken by our Prime Minister through the four question packages and core concepts the beacons were laid out for the convention, later the IGC, and the text that precedes today.

I would like to decide to make one comment. Ratification in the various Member States must be completed before the end of next year. We can assume that there will be another referendum in Britain somewhere in the course of next year, whatever the outcome may be. I have already said that, in my opinion, this is not a constitution for fifty years and that there is not enough flexibility and too much rigidity in the entire ratification process. It would have been better if, especially in terms of policy, the third part, smoother adjustments would have been possible with special majorities, for which several proposals have been made.

Mr. Prime Minister, I know that the moment may not have yet come, but I think, somewhere in the course of next year, if that text is ratified in most Member States, that we should still explore the possibilities of enhanced cooperation. Many, like me, will find that very important, especially as there are soon twenty-eight and even more Member States in the Union. The classic is that this reinforced cooperation must take place, as provided in the Constitution, within the Constitution. This does not need to provide a problem. But it is also my personal conviction, if in practice it is made impossible by a number of Member States — which may, based on the text of the Constitution — that we must examine with a number of Member States, preferably starting from the founding Member States of the European Union, whether we also have no possibilities for closer cooperation outside the European Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around. We should not limit this to the six founding Member States of the Union, but we should also involve a Member State such as Britain in this closer cooperation. It can be argued that Britain is not currently part of the Monetary Union. That is correct. The great sensitivity of Britain is mainly related to the outlook of the pound sterling and less to the fastening of the parity of the pound to the euro. Monetary-technically this, in my opinion, can be perfectly solved. On the one hand, one can keep an eye on and leave room for that British sensitivity, on the other hand, the six Member States must make efforts to strengthen cooperation with other Member States, but also with Britain.

Mr. Prime Minister, it will not surprise you that the VLD will approve this bill with conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, our debate today is of particular importance. I am delighted that we have reserved for the plenary session of this Thursday afternoon the main of our discussions. This is probably the best way to emphasize the importance of our approach. But it is also the best way to organize for the whole population a true pedagogy on the European issue, to be clear and precise about our commitments.

I see three reasons for the importance of our discussions.

1 of 1. The text of the constitutional treaty itself and what it commits.

2 of 2. The ambiguity of certain public positions in favor of “yes” or “no”. An ambiguity that can be criticized, but which must be observed and whose causes must absolutely be understood, in order to meet the true questions raised, sometimes unconsciously, by the supporters of the no.

3 of 3. Probably one of the causes of the distrust that the treaty arouses in some, is this famous democratic deficit of which we talk a lot and meet a little, whose worst expression is this feeling of increasingly shared, true or false, of suffering Europe rather than building it, and of losing feathers there.

To answer these three reasons, it’s not about being long, but trying to be clear, politically clear. It will be for me to say why a left-wing man, a left-wing parliamentary group, a left-wing party, my own, firmly support the adoption of this Constitution for Europe in the name of a left-wing political project, a social political project.

On the text of the Constitution itself, I will be brief because our colleague, Camille Dieu, will speak soon on behalf of my group and will say the prospects that it can open.

But first, let’s be honest: yes, this text is imperfect. Yes, it has insufficiencies. We demanded more and hoped for better.

Now that we are captured by the outcome of long discussions, long negotiations, laborious compromise, what to think about it? In my opinion this is: we must move forward and move forward without cheating on the challenge. The progress, however small it may be, is going in the right direction.

A few considerations in this regard.

The symbolic assertion that the legal foundations of the European Union are now a Constitution is ⁇ impressive. It is the consecration of the will to build a common project, whatever its current imperfection. Treaties are no longer covered. Europe is now founded as a true indivisible political entity.

On the content, it is known that the text is largely the codification of previous treaties. It is then inconsistent to want to solve 50 years of effort and struggle, violently denouncing today what was at least tolerated yesterday. Those who denounce the Europe of merchants, consecrated by a constitution of merchants, deny with this argument the reality of the European construction. This is where we started, with economic trade and free competition. Let us see where we are today, let us see the social advances, welcome the results achieved and have the courage to continue to fight for more Europe, for a better Europe.

To say no today to a clear progress, even unsatisfactory, is to give up fighting, is to affirm its powerlessness. In reality, this is like believing and making believing that one could summarize the happy future of the European Union and its citizens in a single text and be satisfied with the outcome for future times. On the contrary, since the text is critical or imperfect, according to this logic, the future will necessarily be horrible. We all do politics here and we know that this appreciation is false. In fact, it is totalitarian because it reduces the construction of the world to the society of the good and the bad.

But a political project is a constant struggle, a path that is traced as much as it is travelled. Nothing in the text or in the dispositif of the Constitution contradicts a more social, more equal European project. Nothing prevents the rejection of the Service Directive. Nothing would prevent a different orientation of the liberalization as we know it. This is the real fight. That is why we have to fight. To reject this Constitution is to renounce this struggle and dedicate a Europe that satisfies us little and that can be changed tomorrow.

To be even clearer, to say no today would devote Europe to merchants. We all know here that to want to renegotiate an achievement is to commit to losing it. To demand more, to move forward, is, on the contrary, to continue to affirm a presence, an importance. It is forcing the new compromise, the one we must already claim today, towards which we must move forward. That being said, I also believe that the many criticisms addressed to this Constitution, which is only a stage and not an accomplishment, reflect a real discomfort. This is probably the real issue we are facing and we probably have some responsibility in this regard.

As a result, we were not very interested in it. Europe is political. Directives can be criticized because they are not the undeniable continuation of the Treaties. They are made of choices and directions and can therefore be fought.

We need to talk about it and talk about it constantly. It is therefore necessary, from here, from the heart of the states, from all democratic institutions, in the communes, in the parliaments, to speak of Europe, to imagine Europe, to criticize Europe and to make known to Europe that it is spoken of and what one wants it to become.

I will not return to our previous debates about a popular consultation, the case is closed. But it was also not a response to the requirement for an evaluation and a continuous debate on the European project. By grasping the criticisms of the Constitution we are debating, and therefore by pronouncing ourselves on this Constitution, we cannot make the impasse on the democratic and political issue that I have recalled. Otherwise, we will lead the entire European construction to failure.

In this regard, I would like to make a proposal to this Assembly. I will submit, as an opening, a suggestion, a proposal for a response to what I denounce and which we all undoubtedly denounce, a proposal for the Rules of the Chamber aimed at organizing within the Parliament two annual public consultations, in spring and in autumn, on the issues and the state of European construction.

It is about organizing real debates to help those who negotiate and transact elsewhere to hear and understand the citizens of the world they are building. It is about putting citizenship and politics back at the heart of the European project, this project over which we know we have a power — see what happened recently with the Services Directive — even if, by laziness or indifference, we have pretended to forget or forget to exercise that power.

I would therefore like to submit this proposal, which I summarize thus, but also share it and make it a common approach. I therefore submit it to all the groups of the democratic political formations by proposing to their presidents — and I have already received positive signs — to consult with us quickly in order to try to agree on a common text, to deposit and defend it together.

I want, in this way, to be concrete around a real problem, which is posed politically today, at the same time and with the same importance as the question of our consent to the constitutional treaty.

I mean by this that the “yes” that my group will express is not just a passive confirmation. It affirms for the future a real political approach and an active commitment to continue a struggle that is far from over.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, today we can — again, I would say — bow over an important text on European integration. My group will approve this. First, however, I would like to stop for a moment at the neekamp, at the camp of the opponents. It turns out that there are groups that vote no because they think the Constitution is going too far, too far in the direction of European integration. These groups are usually found on the right side. They are chauvinist, conservative groups. They are also found among the blood-and-soil nationalists. We shouldn’t waste a lot of words on that part of the no-camp. I will not do that in any case. They are involved in the retrograde movement of Europe. We want an open Europe. I want my children to live in a European society that is open to the world and that goes away from the idea that the world is their village. That part of the no-camp has been lost in advance.

If I describe myself, I am a federalist and a leftist politician. I also see in the no-camp a lot of people who are federalist and left-wing and who advocate against the European Constitution because they think it is not going far enough. I address them when I say that they make a big mistake in thinking that we will have more Europe by saying no to this Constitution.

On the contrary, I fear that saying no to this Constitution means that we will have a recession in Europe, that it will be much more difficult and will take many years before we will again have the chance to vote on a text to which twenty-five and soon ⁇ twenty-seven countries would agree.

I would also like to ask my left-wing friends whether they really think that we can better cope with the challenge posed by globalization with a Europe that has continued to stick to the Treaty of Nice or with a Europe that can enjoy the progress contained in the European Constitution.

I am convinced of the latter. Our group will vote. First and foremost, because we want to bring the progress that the Constitution contains. There is progress in various areas. I think, first of all, that we will have a more democratic Europe, because it has been made through the formula of the Convention. Previously, the texts were drawn up in diplomatic salons and subsequently presented to Parliament. Now many members of the European Parliament and national parliaments have been involved in the preparation of this text.

We will have a more democratic Europe as the European Parliament gets much more powers, including in the gradually becoming more important area of domestic affairs and justice, among many other matters, including in the agricultural budget, one of the major pots from the European budget. We will have a more democratic Europe because – as it has already been said – the national parliaments will be more closely involved in European decision-making. We will have a more democratic Europe because it will be possible to oblige the Commission, through a popular initiative, to launch European decision-making.

As a left-wing politician, it is also important for me to take the progress that the Constitution gives on the social level. We will have better maps to get to the social Europe that I want, because there will be a social horizontal clause and because it will be possible to enforce all provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally. That is not mine. It means that every employee in Europe will be able to enforce their right to information and consultation, to collective action and to protection against unlawful dismissal, through a court. A more social Europe, a much stronger social dialogue and a better defined role of the social partners, I would like to all take that into account.

Thanks to this Constitution, we will have a third progress. Imagine — it has already been said by other colleagues — that we are trying to control the enlargement to which it was decided, with a Europe that has continued to stick to the Treaty of Nice. It will never succeed if we only have that instrument. Enlargement is and remains one of the biggest political challenges in Europe and it must succeed.

What I want to bring through this Constitution, another reason to vote in favour, is the expansion of the powers of the European Union in the field of foreign policy, security policy and even, hesitantly, defence policy.

Is there anyone who thinks that by staying separate from each other we are going to weigh more on the course of things in the world? It is only by bringing together our weights and the weights of the twenty-five Member States that we will be able to bring together our strength and our influence on the course of things. These are all reasons for voting in favour of this Constitution.

However, our yes will also be a critical yes. This is not perfect. On the contrary, as a federalist, as a socialist, I have a lot to note in the texts that are here. As a federalist, I am disgraced by the too big European Commission. I am surprised by the role of the new President of the Council. I am afraid that we are taking the path from or that we have taken steps towards intergovernmental. As a federalist, I have always been and will remain in favour of a strong role of the Commission. As a socialist, I regret that taxation still remains a no-go area, that unanimity remains required. I deeply regret this. The yes that we are going to give for the sake of the progress that is in it is therefore also a critical yes. There is too little that can still be decided by a majority decision. There is too much unanimity in this.

A third yes that we give is a combatable yes. I say to my left-wing friends who advocate against a European Constitution that the society that our children will know, the European society, will be determined by the power ratio between left and right in Europe. And yes, I say to my left-wing friends that we are not strong in Europe. We are a minority in the European Parliament. And yes, I note that the right is very strong and I note that the right wants to carry through the market and the competitive mindset in an unrestricted way. But I also tell my left-wing friends that we are not powerless. We can reverse things, we can even reverse them. Rocco Butiglioni is back. We have reversed the Bolkestein Directive. The Port Directive is reversed. From that not too strong position, we could turn things around. But also in that Constitution we will approve there are elements that allow us to be offensive. Take the people’s initiative. Once the Constitution is approved, the European Socialists will immediately start an action based on the people’s initiative.

We will try to gather a million signatures in Europe. This will require the Commission to launch an action for the guaranteed income, the minimum income for every European. I am curious which government, even of right-wing signature, will be able to oppose its own public opinion if we, socialists, in Europe come up with such a battle point. The Europe we dream of is a Europe where it is good to live for all people, the weakest first. We will realize this. Their

Our group will therefore deliver a fighting yes-vote. The day after the adoption of this treaty, of this European Constitution, we, socialists, will strive for a different Europe. Our example is that of Mitterrand and Delors. If I have listened carefully to colleagues Van Rompuy and Pinxten, then I think we can find each other on the level of the institutional framework we want to reach. I suggest that we put our hands together. We, Flemish socialists, are supporters of the Europe of the Concentric Circles. The inner circle, the core, the open core Europe in the eurozone. The second circle: the European Union with the single market for the countries that are not yet willing to join. The third circle: our neighbors and the strong partnership agreements we will conclude. I think there is consensus among the democratic parties in this Parliament. If we find each other there, then we have taken a step.

I want to say now that with the Christian Democrats on different points, with the Liberals on other points, you will find us in a struggle in the core of Europe to start, for a full competence of Europe on the social, ecological, economic and also on the fiscal level. We will be able to maintain the kind of society that we, socialists, advocate in Europe only if we create a political counter-force against the effects of globalization.

We will vote for this Constitution, but also for the struggle thereafter. Where we can act together with you, we will do it. On other points, we will introduce a different political view and we will fight you, where necessary, here and in the European Parliament. To my regret, I have found that, on several of the key points for my group, the EPP is too right-wing and that liberal parties are too large in their opposition to an opening of the European Union’s powers in fiscal matters. We will not agree on these points. On the institutional level, I would like to work with you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, my dear colleagues, you will not be surprised if I introduce my statement by reminding how disappointed we are that the Belgians are somehow orphans of a deep debate on the European Constitution and on the constitutional treaty. The French-speaking have, of course, the French television, the Dutch-speaking, the Dutch television to follow the debates that take place in these two countries and which are vigorous debates on the notion of Europe.

I was somewhat astonished to hear that the more important a subject is, the less the people have the right to speak about it. This is what I thought I understood in the intervention of Mr. by Van Rompuy. And the more important a subject is, the less we need to give the word to the people. This is a concept of democracy that seems to me somewhat controversial.

Furthermore, I would like to tell my colleague Thierry Giet that in terms of consultation, there is, unfortunately, no pick-up session. You have passed by the popular consultation that was proposed to you a few months ago, and today you are proposing us to consult, after all, not everyone but a few privileged who would be part of senacles defending particular or collective interests. This seems to me to be a method, too, largely disputed. I would have preferred to discuss, very clearly, issues before going to the vote.

Today we are crying out about what is happening in France and the Netherlands. People could vote “no.” Of course, the people could vote “no”! Should elections be abolished once we are in power? I can assure you that the current majority does not intend to abolish the elections. You are reassured about this, I hope. But it seems to me that all the arguments used to bypass or challenge the usefulness of a consultation on such a matter seem to me more special than each other.

The Constitutional Treaty which we are discussing today brings together, in one text, - I believe that Mr. Giet referred to it - 50 years of history of European construction. In this regard, we agree, because the chronology cannot separate us and 50 years of history of European construction is important. The Constitutional Treaty defines the general principles and foundational values of a political project. It specifies the organs, the powers of these organs, and this too is ⁇ important.

I would have a tendency to say, without being pejorative, that it is not only that, but that it is all that!

I mean by this that this debate is sometimes parasited by all sorts of themes or subjects that have nothing to do with the constitutional treaty. I think about the possible accession of Turkey, the Bolkestein Directive, the debate on relocation or globalization. All of this has nothing to do with the constitutional treaty as such, although, of course, in the context of the future of Europe, we will have to address all these topics. But, practically, they do not interfere with the position that can be taken on the constitutional treaty.

A series of counter-truths and inaccuracies have, indeed, been proclaimed by one and another in the context of debates that may have taken place in certain countries. I think in particular of France, where we have sometimes witnessed totally sidering situations. I will take just one example, that of Mr. Henri Emmanuelli, this great French socialist thinker, whose statement is ⁇ in the top 10 of the inepties. According to him, the fact that the constitutional treaty enshrines the right to life would mean that all legislation allowing the voluntary interruption of pregnancy would be unconstitutional on the European level. He obviously omits to specify that this right to life concerns first and foremost the abolition of the death penalty, as specified in the text of the Constitution. In these debates, some do not hesitate to use inconsistent arguments.

I know that it has become very tendency to denigrate the community work, the European work, to make Europe an emissary goat. “Everything that goes wrong is the fault of Europe.” Sometimes they even say, “It’s the fault of Brussels,” which is even simpler, especially in other countries. Whenever a difficult decision has to be made, “it’s because of Europe.” Whenever something goes wrong, “it’s probably Europe’s fault,” etc.

We are – it must be admitted – we, politicians, partly responsible for this situation. Indeed, we create in the population the feeling that we must be favorable to Europe, but in any case not to that Europe. But what does this mean? What do we want as Europe? This is probably the real question. We want, I think, a peaceful Europe, a peaceful Europe. I think there is a broad consensus on this, and that is happy. We want a Europe that guarantees the rights and freedoms. We want a Europe that gives all its place to democracy, justice, a solidary and prosperous Europe.

In short, even if we do not always say this, we want a liberal Europe in the proper sense of the term.

So today is an opportunity to evaluate the path taken and to consider the constitutional treaty in terms of value-added: what more does it bring? That is the question.

I like to recall this phrase of Victor Hugo who, already in 1849 at the Congress of Peace, said in a great liberal that he was, as an open man, full of ideas and spirit: "One day will come when there will be no more fields of battle than the markets opening up to trade and the minds opening up to ideas." It is magnificent!

It is true that Europe is the continent of Verdun, the continent of Auschwitz, the continent of the communist goulags. As Jeremy Rifkin put it, it is “a political ensemble born of a dream of peace.” It is peace, I said. But that is also freedom. Indeed, eight countries from the East have joined us recently, but also other countries such as Spain, Greece, Portugal had communist or fascist dictatorships. The Europe we want is in the opposite of both fascism and communism.

It is not a coincidence that, in the coalition of the “Archaic” of the “No” in France, this coalition brings together both the extreme right and the extreme left, in a curious companionship.

I also like the speech of the sociologist Philippe d'Iribarne who wrote a book entitled "Three Figures of Freedom". It explains how pluralist the European freedom is. This European freedom comes from three major sources: the English conception, the French conception and the Germanic conception. The English conception explains the free man who frees himself from slavery and servitude; it speaks of the free, self-determined, autonomous man who, as the English philosopher John Locke said, benefits from the market in which he is free to act. The French conception has more to do with the man who frees himself from all feudalism and cultivates the logic of honor. This freedom is closer to the notion of equality in the relationship between dominant and dominated.

Then there is the Germanic conception, where the free man is the one who participates in the community, in the debate, who gives his opinion, who wishes to be heard and who listens. This is the “communication action” of the Germans, and it seems to me that it is an interesting design.

Our European freedom, as we cultivate it, summarizes these three logics of freedom, which, by the way, gave rise to different legal corpus. The French motto "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" summarizes well these three conceptions of freedom: freedom for what it is, equality because it is necessary, and fraternity because it is even more necessary.

We are carrying, at the level of the European project, this concept of freedom. For us, Europe seals more than a political balance, it seals a balance of values. We want a Europe of peace, a Europe of freedom, but we also want a solidarity Europe.

Voorzitter: by Geert Lambert, undervoorzitter. The President: Mr. Geert Lambert, Vice President The countries that make up the Europe of Twenty-Five do not all have, it is true, the same living conditions for their population. Sometimes I have the impression that the denounces of relocalizations or low wages that the new member countries experience are never but a populist regurgitation of an old protectionism, or even a neo-nationalism.

Beyond declarations of intent, we want a truly solidary Europe that takes into account the fact that there are differences in living standards between countries. If this Europe really wants to be solidary, we must take responsibility for it. We also want a prosperous Europe. It is true that the Single European Act of 1986 clearly states that the purpose of European integration is to improve the general well-being through the overall increase of wealth. In the current global context, Europe is prosperous. It provides a high level of social protection. Longevity, an interesting indicator of the success of a collective enterprise, is ⁇ high there.

President: Jean-Marc Delizée, First Vice-President Voorzitter: Jean-Marc Delizée, eerste ondervoorzitter. Europe has historically chosen an economic model diametrically opposed to that of the collectivist-type planned economy. This is a liberal model. Europe, in its economic organization and in many other ways, is different from the latest stigma of planned economies, such as North Korea or other countries. It is obvious! The Constitutional Treaty refers to a highly competitive market economy, free competition without distortion. These rules seem to be fundamental. At a time when China and India are joining and integrating into the global economy, Europe offers us both the space, the framework, the tools to address globalization effectively.

I believe that we must stop distilling the fear of competition, as if we had decided that we cannot be competitive. Only economic activity and wealth creation within the framework of a social market economy will give a chance to the social goals proclaimed in the constitutional treaty. Let us stop gargling ourselves with a European social model that we value and measure the interest in terms of objectives. Let’s stop gurgling at the moment when we are currently experiencing extremely high unemployment rates in most European countries. The European Union must fight social exclusion and discrimination more actively.

The Constitutional Treaty devotes a whole chapter to solidarity and incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as already stated. It undertakes to systematically take into account in all its policies "the requirements related to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion". These goals are ours. I am addressing Mr. Van der Maelen regretted that in terms of social and fiscal policy, we have not been able to move to qualified majority or at least to a faster decision-making mode. It is true, but we must know that it also protects us. Compared to a country like ours with a very high social protection index, British Socialists, for example, your travel companions, could propose restrictions in terms of social protection. We must therefore remain careful to keep social protection among the priorities of the European Union.

You also know, the constitutional treaty provided for passing clauses. It provided that the European Council could move from unanimous vote to qualified majority vote when it deems it appropriate, provided that it decides unanimously.

This is the first time, it must be said, that a European treaty takes so explicitly into account social objectives. Beyond this consideration, the constitutional treaty also constitutes a considerable advance compared to the Treaty of Nice, which was formerly qualified, somewhat exaggerated ⁇ , of real disaster by some, of “diplomatic verdun” or of summit of primary nationalism by others. The Treaty grants the European Union a genuine single legal personality. We believe that the next step should be the single representation of the European Union abroad.

The Treaty also defines a new system of competences. It strengthens the role of Parliament with its co-decision power with the Council of Ministers. The composition of the European Commission will further reflect the outcome of the European elections. We will also be able to put faces on the main bodies of the European Union such as the President of the Council who will be there for two and a half years, renewable period, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs who will be responsible for the common foreign and security policy.

The Constitutional Treaty also enshrines the principle of subsidiarity. It seems to me that the debate in the national states must be permanent from the moment that this treaty comes into force. Therefore, it is not appropriate to anticipate that we will take care of Europe twice a year. Why twice a year when, precisely, the Treaty provides, by the principle of subsidiarity, that the national parliaments, continuously, consider all the proposals of law, all the bills that Europe will issue within its organs? We will then have the opportunity to discuss all of these proposals and projects and to judge whether they are in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. I think that this constitutional treaty introduces the European debate permanently in the national parliaments, and this seems to me to be an interesting element. The Constitution significantly increases the number of areas where the decision will be taken by qualified majority rather than unanimously. There is a real progress in this regard. It creates the popular legislative initiative, the right to petition, we are obviously in favor of it. It strengthens the mechanisms of structured defence cooperation and thus opens the door to a true European defence that will make Europe a Europe-power, quiet of course, but a Europe-power that will give more weight to its influence in the resolution of conflicts in the world, of which it has made, I think, a certain speciality.

The Constitutional Treaty also solemnly consecrates – and this will be a final note – European citizenship. All Belgian citizens will also become European citizens. The Union adheres, for its citizens, to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Fingers and Fundamental Freedoms. By incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it consecrates, by declining them in the form of law – and it is new – the principles of dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity and citizenship.

Of course, we would have desired even more spectacular advances. We would have desired deeper advances, which make a little more room for the community method rather than the intergovernmental method. I think that all the democratic movements in this Parliament will work to ensure that, gradually, the European Union gives an increasingly wider place to the community method and that the intergovernmental is reduced as much as possible in a series of important decisions for the future of Europe, in particular in the fields of social and fiscal policy.

The Belgians were at the starting point, I recall, of the conventional method that now leads to the Constitution since it was under the Belgian presidency that this decision was made. It was in Laeken that the decision was made.

Therefore, we demonstrate, legitimately it seems to me, a certain pride in relation to this Constitution. We have the feeling of participating in the march of Europe, the Europe of peace, freedom, solidarity and prosperity.

We will vote yes with conviction for the adoption of the constitutional treaty because, to resume Habermass’s statement, “it is thanks to their political constitution that peoples are born.”

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was present from the first second at the Conference of Presidents, where it was agreed that the various political groups would have a half-hour speech time, except for the Flemish Interest. I asked for an hour of speaking time. However, there was no agreement at all that the Prime Minister would answer the debate halfway. This is against any parliamentary tradition. I would like to emphasize that this does not demonstrate much respect — which, by the way, does not surprise me — for this assembly. The least one can ask a government and its prime minister for this important debate is to answer at the end of the debate, but not halfway to disappear afterwards. This is difficult to accept.

A half hour speaking time per speaker means one hour speaking time with two speakers.

The Government has always the right to intervene in the debate. The Government will answer at the end of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, colleagues, the largest political party in Flanders and Belgium with 1 million voters, the Flemish Belang, may soon, as the only large group in this House, not approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.

That we are the only ones who hear a no-voice can’t blame us. We know that the majority of the population is behind us. Therefore, there should be no public consultation on this Constitution. Therefore, everything must be dealt with at a glance without the population having even the slightest involvement.

The report of the discussion in the committee also shows that the Flemish Interest was the only party that has thoroughly analyzed and criticized this Constitution. All other parties have done so quickly as possible by either simply silencing, or by debiting some common places and expressing their naive belief in Europe.

Unlike in a dozen other countries, Belgium has not dared to organize a popular consultation. However, there were proposals from the liberals, even submitted by Karel De Gucht in a past life and of spirit, to ask the opinion of the population. But the real boss of this country, PS chairman Elio Di Rupo said at a forum on the European Constitution in the Senate, I quote: “A popular consultation can thoroughly disturb the debate about Europe. It will give rise to xenophobic and even racist comments. We have already had a royal question about a popular council and are doing well to avoid a new adventure." According to Di Rupo, a popular consultation could also be a precedent for organizing referendums on domestic issues such as social security and state structure. The two liberal parties, VLD and MR — it should be said — have rightly made efforts to get the popular consultation through.

It should be said that the two liberal parties, VLD and MR, have rightly made an effort to get the popular consultation anyway. However, Elio’s iron will is law.

Initially, the liberals also received support from sp.a-spirit. However, Spirit can only exist with the grace of sp.a and PS. It was therefore not surprising that spirit chairman Geert Lambert, under the pressure of PS and sp.a, made a 180° curve and ultimately did not support the proposal for a public consultation, thus denying one of the key points of the spirit program. There had to be quickly found a reason for this U-turn of spirit. Mr Lambert then argued that the Flemish Interest of the people’s consultation on the Constitution would like to conduct a consultation on the Turkish accession.

Without the support of spirit, there would no longer be a majority in the committee for a popular consultation. This is especially unfortunate, because the great strength of a popular consultation on a difficult topic such as the European Constitution is precisely that citizens are asked to think thoroughly about certain, fundamental issues and questions. Questions such as: What should the European Union be competent for? Is the current system of subsidiarity sufficient to dampen the European, centralizing forces? Is the system of qualified majority and thus the departure of unanimity with veto right not too much extended to areas where it actually cannot?

Colleagues, however, there is still a chance to do something right. The Flemish Parliament has organized its own, Flemish, non-binding popular consultation in Flanders. No one can prevent the Flemish Parliament from doing so, if it wants to. The Flemish level is not below but next to the national Parliament when it comes to the approval of international treaties. Since the Flemish Parliament also has to take a decision on the European Constitution, this is a golden opportunity to stir up the debate in Flanders. The Flemish ex-government agreement Dewael, more specifically "A new project for Flanders", envisaged, in anticipation of a binding referendum and a popular decree, the introduction of a consultative referendum.

As Professor Wilfried Dewachter stated in The Time of 2 February 2005, a own, Flemish people's consultation would have given Flanders as a region a little more European profile and would take Flanders above all seriously both the European project and its own democracy.

However, there is still hope. We put that hope, once and for all, on the French people, who in a dozen days will be able to speak out in a referendum on the European Constitution. The French government and President Chirac are currently doing everything they can to avoid a negative ruling. Chirac even defended the Bolkestein Service Directive, against which there is strong resistance in France. He assured that the Bolkestein Directive would be thoroughly amended, all in order to get a “yes” anyway.

After the French, the Dutch are on their turn on June 1. Hopefully the Dutch will demonstrate common sense and send out that Constitution.

Meanwhile, it is disturbing how the European propaganda machine throws everything into the battle with unprecedented; stormy budgets. The European Commission has invested 9 million euros. The European Parliament will add 6.1 million euros. Together, that 15.1 million euros, more than 600 million Belgian francs, according to the answer I received from Secretary of State for European Affairs Donfut on a written question. Of course, that amount can only be spent to force a yes to the European population. That fact alone should make us very suspicious.

The European Constitution was prepared in the so-called European Convention, which was established under the Belgian Presidency in the second half of 2001 by the Declaration of Laken, with representatives of the governments, of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament and of the European Commission. French power politics pushed 78-year-old ex-president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing forward as chairman of the Convention, with as vice chairmen the Belgian Jean-Luc Dehaene and the Italian Giuliano Amato.

The supporters of the European Constitution would like to present the European Convention as the summit of democracy, but in reality it was a closed club where intrigues were not out of the air and where compromises were forged in closed rooms, which were then imposed on the others. The Convention was not a real debate between for and against more Europe, because the overwhelming majority of the convention members were strong supporters of a federal Europe. The debate focused solely on the transfer of more powers to the European level and on making as many decisions as possible with a qualified majority, and thus, as much as possible, abstaining from the unanimity rule. There was never a question of transferring powers back to the Member States.

In June 2003, Giscard d'Estaing submitted the draft Constitution to the European Council of Thessaloniki. The text of 4 October 2003 was subsequently discussed at an intergovernmental conference on 18 October 2004 and amended on a number of points to be solemnly signed by the European Heads of State and Government in Rome on 29 October 2004.

However, the Constitution, which claims to build Europe with it, denies the fundamental elements of Europe’s heritage. Thus, despite the insistence of several Member States, especially Poland, the preamble does not mention the Jewish-Christian roots of Europe. Particularly France and Belgium, according to indiscretion, have opposed it. Despite their different history and identity, these values are common to all the peoples of Europe. These values have defined the history of Europe for centuries. To deny that is a form of history falsification and tends to self-hatred.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the current Pope Benedict XVI, said about this, among other things, in Le Figaro of 12 August 2004 as follows.

“Europe is a cultural continent, not a geographical continent. The roots that help shape this continent are those of Christianity. The refusal to include such a reference was also a genuine crush for the Islamists, not only for the Islamists who have massively settled in Europe in recent years, but also for Turkey. The Turks made very clear that such a reference to the Jewish-Christian roots was unacceptable for them. In this way, colleagues, we are doing self-denial.

The European Union is built through treaties. Also this Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is, in terms of conclusion and entry into force, another international law treaty, concluded between States, which must be ratified in accordance with their own constitutional rules. However, there is a fundamental difference. The previous treaties transferred new powers each time, but the sovereignty of the Member States was never questioned. This is now the case. The current treaty differs fundamentally from the previous treaties, in the sense that it is now a document that has the possibility to establish a structure very similar to a state. It is undeniable that the European Union, through this constitutional treaty, acquires so many powers that it will look more like a federal state than ever before.

The European Union must essentially remain intergovernmental, a kind of loose confederation, a cooperation between Member States that retain their own sovereignty but choose to create a common market and also decide to do a number of things together. It refers to areas of great importance for the EU, such as macroeconomics, currency, foreign affairs, security and defence, where the benefits of a scale increase and where European added value are manifest. In all other matters, the principle of subsidiarity should apply unshortedly at the beginning. But with this so-called constitution, no power is transferred back to the states, on the contrary. Nor does the Constitution contain any mechanism that allows powers to be returned to the states.

We cannot agree with a European Union that increasingly absorbs more and more powers and interferes more and more deeply in the societies of the various Member States. We can only agree with a Union that can and should intervene in cross-border areas where a European approach is logical and a European added value is obvious. Matters that are closely related to national identity such as education, culture, labour law, social security, criminal law, police and judicial policy and taxation should remain intact with the Member States.

With this Constitution, there will no longer be intergovernmental pillars such as the supranational community pillar and the pillars of common foreign and security policy, on the one hand, and justice and domestic affairs, on the other.

The European Union is evolving into a true federation and becoming a full-fledged legal entity that is now not only next to but also above the states. Member States lose their veto right in up to sixty-three cases. The qualified majority – 55% of the Member States and 65% of the population – will in very many cases replace the unanimity rule. The priority of Union law over the law of the States is expressly enshrined in the European Constitution. It is even true that the European Union also comes into the field of the powers that in our country are attributed to the provinces, regions and communities. For example, the Union can support, coordinate or complementary actions in the areas of public health, industry, culture, tourism, education, youth, sport and vocational training. These are all matters that now fall within the competence of the states.

Dear colleagues, this is important. Those who think that Belgium will disappear and disappear on its own because, on the one hand, Europe takes away more and more powers from Belgium, and, on the other hand, the state reform gives new powers to Flanders, are mistaken. The European Union also undermines the powers conferred on Flanders.

As we said earlier, the priority of EU law over the law of the states is anchored in the Constitution. This will make the EU more powerful than ever. Specialists in European law will now argue that this priority was already developed by the European Court of Justice in the famous Costa/Enel judgment of 1964. This is true, but there is one big difference. The Court of Justice has always stated that the priority of European law over the law of States automatically follows from the nature of European law itself, in short, from the priority of the European level. Until now, however, the constitutional courts of the Member States have always held a different position, namely that this priority was not based on the nature of European Community law itself, but on the transfer of powers by the national constitutions. In other words, and in ordinary human language, because the states have conferred powers on Europe, European law prevails over national law.

The position of the constitutional courts and the underlying idea of national constitutions has always been that certain powers are transferred to the Union while the Member States remain sovereign. With the entry of the principle of priority in the European Constitution, the interpretation of the European Court of Justice wins. The primacy of European law follows with this Constitution from the nature of this right itself.

Colleagues, this is a very serious matter. This is not about legal games. This is very fundamental.

This is about the relationship between the national and the European level. The absolute primacy of European law, coupled with the further acquisition of powers, makes the Union more powerful than it has ever been and makes us evolve into a federation. In addition, the EU will become a full-fledged legal entity that will now not only stand beside, but also above the states. This is equally fundamental and extensive. Just because the European Union was not a separate legal entity until now, it was seen, for example, by the German Bundesverfassungsgericht in its famous Maastricht-Urteil as one of the safeguards for the preservation of the sovereignty of the Member States.

The entire text of the 2000 Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has not yet been enforced, is incorporated into a separate section of the Constitution. This is also extensive, because the integration of the Charter into the Constitution must ensure a further federalizing function. It is therefore a further step towards a full-fledged federal Europe and ⁇ not the protection of true fundamental rights and freedoms against the official Europe, as they have been protected by the Court of Justice since 1969. No, lawyers such as Fernand Keuleneer point out that from now on, every individual will be able to go to a national court to challenge national legislation that will infringe on his rights as an EU citizen.

Colleagues, this Constitution formalizes existing social policy powers and introduces new ones, although the left in Europe considers that the Constitution is not yet far enough on the social level. On the other hand, we believe that the entire social policy package should remain at the level of the Member States because it is closely linked to the national characteristics of the individual States. Each nation must be able to put its own emphasis on social redistribution. This means that national governments should be able to manage their own social security systems in accordance with their country’s specific demographic, economic, historical and cultural characteristics.

We believe that the construction of a European prosperity state, a European social model and a common social security is impossible and, moreover, completely undesirable. Additionally, by adopting this Constitution, we further limit our possibilities to conduct our own specific immigration policy and to determine who we will or will not admit to our social security system. This is a little attractive prospect.

Colleagues, the Fleming and the other Europeans should have a clear picture of what the Union stands for, for which it is precisely competent. However, the structure, functioning and powers of the Union are just as incomprehensible and opaque as before and simply incomprehensible for the ordinary citizen. Most of the hundreds of articles are completely unreadable for ordinary Europeans.

The Eurospeak is only comprehensible for some specialists. There is also a huge democratic deficit. I invite you to try reading the book that lies on your table. I think one must have eaten a lot of letters in order to get out of it. What should this be for the ordinary citizen?

I want to say something about subsidiarity. There is also a problem with this. The European Constitution undermines the principle of subsidiarity already incorporated in the Maastricht Treaty.

The Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality is annexed to the Constitution. This means that national parliaments can inform the European institutions that a particular legislative proposal for a certain reason does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. However, if such a reasoned opinion receives the support of at least one-third of all votes of the national parliaments – each Member State has two votes of parliaments – the Commission or another European institution is only obliged to re-examine the proposal, but not to effectively respect the comments of the national parliaments and to amend or withdraw the proposal. There is also a democratic deficit.

I personally address the Chairman of the Chamber in connection with the subsidiarity test, checking whether the EU does not overstep powers.

As stated above, each Member State has two votes from parliaments to sign opposition when the European Union commits an excess of powers. Mr. Prime Minister, in the Belgian context, a cooperation agreement must be concluded on this subject between the federal chambers and the state parliaments, which are on an equal level in Belgium. The state parliaments are therefore also international actors in our country. Since all parliaments in Belgium are equal, we cannot leave this to the federal chambers alone.

However, we defend the principle that the two opposing votes of the parliaments, from whatever parliament they come from, are, in fact, two opposing votes. In other words, if the Flemish and Wallish Parliaments oppose the EU for overriding powers, then the quorum should have been reached and Belgium should note opposition. The issue should be settled as soon as possible. Mr. Prime Minister, Prime Minister Leterme said yesterday in the Flemish Parliament that he would first require the approval of such a cooperation agreement before the European Constitution can be approved in the Parliament.

Mr. Prime Minister, my clear question is therefore also to you whether you agree that a cooperation agreement between the various parliaments should first be concluded before the state parliaments approve the European Constitution.

As stated, therefore, no power is transferred back to the states, nor does the Constitution contain a mechanism to do so. In short, it is pure one-way traffic. There are the exclusive competences of the Union such as the customs union, the rules of competition of the internal market and the monetary policy of the Member States, but there are also the areas of shared competence. If the Union adopts a specific item of regulation in these areas, which are very comprehensive, the Member States have nothing more to say on that point. Furthermore, the Union may also intervene in areas not explicitly within its competence if this is necessary to ⁇ its objectives. Since these objectives have become very broad by the Constitution, in fact a blanco cheque is given to the European Union to act everywhere in the various fields. Finally, there is the issue of Turkish membership. Strictly speaking, this is not the case here, but because the Constitution of the Union does not accurately designate its territory as European countries and in October start accession negotiations with the Asian Muslim country Turkey, which still occupies part of the EU member state Cyprus – one did not forget that – Turkey is indeed a bridge too far for us. A bridge too far also because this country culturally and historically does not belong to Europe and the human rights are still severely violated and the minorities are still being oppressed. In this regard, I refer to an interpellation I held yesterday in the Committee on Foreign Relations, addressed to the competent minister, Karel De Gucht, in which I cited recent reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, from which I can conclude that the human rights situation in Turkey is still very serious and that there is no immediate hope of recovery.

Freedom of the press in Turkey is very serious. I would like to emphasize this in particular because the Turkish Association of Journalists has asked our attention in particular. In Turkey, a new criminal law was issued, which was supposed to enter into force on April 1, but was postponed again, this time until June. This so-called democratic criminal law not only removes some controversial criminal provisions from the old criminal code, but also adds some very dangerous principles to it. Old and controversial, for example, was the provision that punishes the conduct in which a person commits acts that state institutions can — I quote — “confess and diminish”. Therefore, there is still a punishment in Turkey when one is so-called insulting the institutions. New and of the same nature — which is important — is the provision that states that are punishable — and I quote — “acts that contravene the fundamental national interest.”

As examples, the explanation of this article refers to, I quote: "Making propaganda for a withdrawal of the Turkish troops from Cyprus", when one in Turkey says that one is in favor of the withdrawal of the Turkish troops from Cyprus, then one is punishable, "openly accepting a compromise arrangement in connection with this issue", which is also punishable, "and admitting that the Armenians underwent a genocide after the First World War."

Mr. Prime Minister, if at this moment a journalist in Turkey writes in a newspaper that he finds it scandalous that the Turkish government has still not recognized the genocide of the Armenians, then this journalist flies into prison. This is the current situation in Turkey.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will decide. The Flemish Interest rejects this European Constitution because it is driving Europe too far towards a federal state, because the Union is too concerned with the specific powers of the Member States, and in Belgium also of the counties, because it is too complicated and too opaque, because the democratic deficit remains phenomenally large in many areas and because we reject a monster Europe kordaat.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, dear colleagues, I had a lot of questions about how to address, in the plenary session of the House, the debate on the Treaty establishing a European Constitution by giving a little height to the debate, by also bringing it back to its proper proportions in relation to the issue on which we must speak. However, paradoxically, there has been no debate in the House, no serious examination of the document, and so many inaccurate things are read and heard about this treaty. This question, I have asked myself for a few days and I have chosen to start by returning the historical context.

This is marked by the expansion to the ten former Eastern countries. This enlargement is the real historical and geopolitical event that must draw our attention. And obviously, to hear the debates and discussions, he is not yet digested. There are too many risks of relocation. There are still fears among the population, while more than a year ago the enlargement has become a reality.

However, since the adoption of the Treaty of Nice in 2001, the organization of the Union and its institutions has not been adapted to the functioning of 25. The debates, at the time, left a taste of too little and breathing of the method of negotiation which gradually gave rise to the idea of bringing together a Convention.

Finally, in December 2001, under the Belgian Presidency, the Laeken Summit decided to convene a European Convention to address four fundamental challenges: 1. How can we bring the Union closer to the citizens? 2 of 2. How can the democratic functioning of the Union be improved? 3 of 3. How can the EU prepare for enlargement? 4 of 4. How can we position the Union in the world?

These are the questions that have been asked and, in my opinion, it is in relation to them that the text that is proposed to us today should be evaluated.

I was honored and pleased to represent the Senate of Belgium as a replacement member. I also had the heart to fulfill the task that had been entrusted to me by the Government of co-presiding with JeanLuc Dehaene the informal consultation group of Belgian representatives at the Convention. I think that this group has shown consistency in defending a federal vision of Europe, assisted in this by excellent collaborators from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I allow myself to open a parenthesis here to address them my sincere thanks.

The Convention was a time of transparency, discussion and highlighting what European construction is: a unique adventure in the history of the world, the decision for States not to build a nation, concept of the 18th and 19th centuries, nor to be just an international organization like the UN, but rather to build a political structure that will be endowed with entire breeds of competence and with as sole condition that the European level brings a plus in terms of quality of decision and well-being for the population.

This process is disappointing, we hear. Many say that we are talking about a Constitution while it is in no way similar to our national, Belgian or French Constitution. It is true, but we are not talking about the same thing. I think that, first of all, it is not unnecessary – and some of my colleagues have already done it – to recall that the construction of Europe, a single process begun 50 years ago, allowed in the first time to remove the wars that have bleeding this continent for centuries and, in the second time, to improve the well-being of the populations.

This process is disappointing. But it is not so simple to discuss at 28: the fifteen of the time, the ten new and the three candidates. It’s about dealing with different political options: the English Labourists, the Berlusconi government, the Scandinavian Socialists through the German Social Democrats and the Polish Conservatives, not to mention the Greens family.

An example to illustrate the difficulty: in our left-wing circles, Madame Dieu, we criticize the lack of social harmonization and the maintenance of the rule of unanimity in this matter. Generally speaking, it is regrettable that this rule remains in many areas, in particular social and taxation. Yet, in the social sphere precisely, it appears to many, in Scandinavia and new countries for example, as indispensable, and this for very opposite reasons, some wanting absolutely to preserve their system of high social protection and others their competitive advantages related to the lower cost of their labor.

There was a compromise that was accepted by all. This is the text that came out of the Convention and which is proposed, with modifications from the CIG, for your approval today.

The new treaty, resulting from this compromise, brings significant improvements compared to existing treaties: it clarifies the functioning of the Union, gives more powers to the European Parliament and more rights to citizens, and improves the capacity of the Union for external action.

Ecolo is very sensitive to the evolution of international politics. The concepts developed by the Bush administration in particular frighten many Democrats who wish that at the international level the primacy be given to law rather than force, that instances such as the United Nations be respected.

It is therefore important, in order to be able to defend these principles at the global level, that the European Union can make this choice heard. It is on the basis of these two elements that Ecolo justifies the support for this text resulting from four years of work.

On the other hand, Mr. Prime Minister, nothing justifies the hurry with which you have asked us to adopt this text. The Constitutional Treaty will enter into force no earlier than on 1 November 2006, or in more than a year. I would like to recall this deadline because the Greens defended the holding of a European referendum, which could not be held, and a popular consultation in Belgium. However, arguments were not lacking.

First, the content of the Treaty itself, which promotes a greater participation of citizens in the European becoming and a strong involvement in the European construction. Then, the growing demand to complement our traditional representative democracy with direct democracy mechanisms. Let us not forget that Brussels is home to the headquarters of the main institutions of the Union and that, as a result, the debate could have had a significant symbolic democratic reach in our country. However, the political majority in this parliament rejected the idea of this consultation.

Like colleague Bacquelaine, I was surprised to hear our colleague Giet’s proposal. Indeed, at first, he had firmly opposed the idea of a popular consultation because of the complexity of the problem — people might not have understood — and for fear of a no. This kind of confidence in people is a problem for me. For six months, it was discussed: "popular consultation, yes or no?" It was answered to all legal objections in the matter. And today we are told that the Rules of the Chamber will be amended and that subsequently consultations of the population will be held. Who are we laughing at? I say it with friendship and irony at the same time, but I sincerely ask myself.

No debate in the House, no discussion, no public information campaign that was promised by the government. Nevertheless, we are reassured by telling us that the absence of debate, the absence of a review of the text will not prevent, in the future, to return to the question of information from medium sufficiently enlightened to understand what it is about. I think this way of acting is a lack of respect for citizens, it is not fair. At the limit, I prefer the position of the CD&V colleague who believes that such a complicated issue should not be submitted to the population. At least, this position is frank and consistent. On the other hand, the attitude that consists in trying to please everyone seems to me politically disputable.

Mr. Prime Minister, nothing prevents us, however, from making this European issue a little more popular, even if we vote under somewhat deplorable conditions. Nothing prevents us, by 2006, from launching an information campaign to tell the Belgians who are, according to a poll published in "Le Soir", rather pro-European, what it is about and why the Constitution is for them a plus and not a less. Recognizing that this treaty text that we are discussing today is the best compromise at any time, that it offers no retreat from the current situation and that it brings significant improvements, does not mean that Ecolo thinks that everything is going well in the house “Europe” and that there is no need to fight both in terms of the policies carried out and in terms of the tools implemented.

I would like to first criticize the attitude of the European Commission and in particular of its current president. The political options of this Commission are too liberal, Mr. Bacquelaine, and not concerned enough with social balances. Unemployment and poverty are the most important problems for our societies. The revised Lisbon Strategy does not satisfy us, the Commission’s options regarding the liberalization of the service market are unacceptable.

The environmental dimension is insufficient, the challenges of global warming are insufficiently taken into account as well as the indispensable promotion of renewable energies. It should be noted, at this stage, that despite the joint efforts of the Greens and some countries, the Euratom Treaty has remained as it is. Remember that this outdated treaty still provides for the promotion of nuclear energy, while we know the impasse of this choice and the energy challenges that await Europe.

Coordination between the new contributions of the Treaty, such as the transversal social clause or the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and existing texts will also need to be achieved. This means that in the policies of the single market and of free competition, the social and environmental dimension will have to be taken more decisively into account, as provided for in the text of the Constitutional Treaty.

The principle of qualified majority and co-decision should have been extended to all the competences of the Union. And the unanimity, already existing but ⁇ ined by this Treaty for future revisions, should have been removed. In this regard, Belgium must maintain its proposal, which at the time consisted, as a compromise, in accepting that the unanimity for the revision of Parts I and II of the Treaty be retained but that, for Part III, qualified majorities may be adopted.

I will not develop these questions here. I prefer to refer to the interventions of the experts included in the Senate report, who well highlighted the difficulties and prospects of the treaty that we are going to vote on.

Should we throw everything under the pretext that this treaty does not meet exactly everything we want? Two assumptions support this option: a renegotiation is possible and the situation without this treaty would be better than with its adoption.

I would like to briefly refute these two assumptions.

First the renegotiation. This text is already the product of a negotiation that began in 2001 when the federal and social forces were not majority. The national and European elections held in the meantime have also been in the direction of strengthening the right and nationalism. To believe, in this political context, that one could, for example, obtain more “Social Europe” or better protection of public services is unfortunately a deception. I also refer you to the very good article published in "La Libre Belgique" on May 12, in which Pascal Lefèvre demonstrates that the refusal of ratification by a State has never resulted in a renegotiation, this in the light of three historical examples. Then, the hypothesis, which is to suggest that the rejection of the constitutional treaty would put us in the obligation to negotiate a new text because we would be without a treaty, is wrong. The non-ratification of the constitutional treaty would only involve the return to the Treaty of Nice, neither more nor less!

The choice is clear. The new treaty offers new weapons, nonexistent in the Nice Treaty, to better fight for more social, more environmentally-conscious European policies: the increased role of the European Parliament, the obligation of transparency for Council decisions, the right to petition for citizens, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the transversal social clause, the recognition of social partners at European level and a legal basis for services of general interest.

It is not the eighth wonder of the world. However, it is not to be rejected. It is the cornerstone for continuing the struggle for a more social and environmentally responsive Europe.

Ecolo will vote in favour of ratification because if this text is not perfect, it contains advances that it would be a shame to refuse, because we do not want a return to the Treaty of Nice, because we do not want one to go wrong. It is not by voting “no” to the European Constitution that Europe will become less liberal. It is by beating the right against the different national and European electoral scrutiny that Europe will take a different direction. It is necessary to be able to recognize, at a certain point, that one battle is over, and if it gives better weapons, start another. This is the case with Ecolo today.

First of all, I would like to welcome the debate that we can conduct together in the plenary session. I would also like to welcome the fact that the House of Representatives has responded positively to the government’s invitation to make the ratification of the European Constitution a priority and thus to give a positive signal with Belgium in relation to the European Constitution. It is my deepest hope that the parliamentary assemblies of the regions and communities, with the same enthusiasm, will quickly come to the ratification of this text and of the European Constitution.

As a government, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we naturally fully support the European Constitution, because it is the expression of our belief in the need for further European integration. We must say that what we are discussing today is somewhat the end point of a long process, which began about four years ago. Anyone who claims that there has been little debate about the European Constitution, even here in Parliament, is wrong. I remember that in the last four years, in every meeting of the European Advisory Council, the draft of the European Constitution was discussed closely or far.

It is the end of a long process, which in fact began during one of the nights when the Treaty of Nice was concluded. Then Belgium, together with two other Member States, namely Germany and Italy, included in the conclusions of the Council of Nice the provision that a fundamental rewrite of the Treaties of the European Union should be considered beyond the Treaty of Nice. It is there in the tombs of Nice, if I can express it so, that we as a country, together with a number of fellow supporters, have forced a first opening in order to reach the European Constitution within the European Union.

The next stage was the Laken Declaration, in which we have summarized all the fundamental questions that should be addressed. We then deliberately chose the method of asking questions, because in this way the Council and those who have difficulty with European integration and with the European Union were willing to move forward. If there is a question mark at the end of a sentence, one is naturally more prone to accept it than if a call mark is written at the end of that sentence.

So it is with this statement of Laken that for the first time the term "constitution" was incorporated into texts of the European Union.

Then came the third phase: the phase of the Convention. I would like to take this opportunity, colleagues, to undoubtedly thank, on behalf of all of you – with a few exceptions – all Belgian members and the Vice-President of the Convention, Jean-Luc Dehaene, for the enormous commitment they have always shown in defending our positions. That Belgian position is specific in the European Union, let’s just emphasize that. We are those who are naturally the forerunners in the European Union to go as far as possible in European integration. This brings with it duties and also difficulties. That means that we always test the final outcome on that original goal: have we gone far enough in European integration with this Constitution?

Finally, a very open method was used for the excellent work of the European Convention. Those meetings were open, all proposals and amendments being discussed were made public, as were the votes. Eventually, a fairly coherent result was achieved, which was not evident at the beginning of the Convention. This led to the Intergovernmental Conference. That was the easiest part of the work, although there have been two more presidencies, namely the Italian presidency and the final result under the Irish presidency. So far, colleagues, seven countries have already ratified the Constitution. By the end of this month, we can expect Austria and Germany to join this group. Then we will all look forward hopefully — at least I, maybe others less — within a few weeks to France and the Netherlands where, as you know, referendums are held.

We would, of course, be deeply saddened if the result of so many efforts that have been made in the last four years since the establishment of the Laken Group would be overthrown. We must not forget that what is now ahead is still a unicum. I have already said it: it is a European Convention that prepared the European Constitution. I think it happened in a rather innovative way in which everyone was involved, contrary to what was claimed here at the tribune. These were the representatives of the parliaments of the 25 national Member States, so not so much anybody, but the deputies, designated by each national parliament of the 25 Member States. Second, there was a representation of the European Parliament, involving all the groups, all the political tendencies of the European Parliament. Third, there were representatives of all the governments of the 25 Member States and of the Member States that will join in the future. Then there were also the representatives of the various European institutions, in particular the European Commission, which is the guarantor or guarantor of the Community interest within the European Union. Intensive work was carried out and widely consulted. The transparent manner in which the Convention has been implemented may be cataloged as pioneering.

The outcome of the Convention exceeded all expectations. It has profoundly influenced the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. In my opinion, colleagues, this innovative approach of the Convention that we established in Laken has created a definitive precedent in the European Union. This means that no major treaty changes will be made within the Union in the future except through the method of establishing a convention involving all components of the European Union — national parliaments, the European Parliament, national governments and the European Commission.

All we can hope is that in the future, in addition to the Convention, the European citizen can also make a direct contribution.

The result, the European Constitution as it presents, I would strongly recommend on behalf of the government for ratification. The result largely corresponds to the ambition we set ourselves from the beginning. I want to demonstrate this by asking a few rhetorical questions.

Who would have believed a few years ago that we would effectively realize a Constitution for the European Union, a word that was taboo until for a few years? Who would have believed that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be integrated into the constitutional treaty? At the time the Charter was created, it was still impossible to integrate it into the treaties of the European Union. Who would have believed a few years ago that the complex pillar structure — the first, the second, the third pillar — which arose from the Maastricht compromises would eventually be abolished and erased and that we would return to a unified structure within the Union? Who would have thought a few years ago that we would create a position of a European Minister of Foreign Affairs, a highly intergovernmental component to date of action within the European Union? Who would have thought a few years ago that we would strengthen ties with national parliaments and introduce a new subsidiarity test where national parliaments could directly carry out that test and realize the control? Who would have thought a few years ago that the powers of the European Parliament would be further expanded, mainly through the extension of the co-decision procedure to a full power over the entire budget of the European Union, a point that colleague Van Rompuy rightly emphasized. Who would have thought — I remember the very regrettable reactions to the so-called and by some crushed Pralinetop — that there would also be significant advances in the European Constitution in the field of defence, including forms of cooperation provided? Today, this cooperation in the European Union is a reality, although steps need to be taken in the future. Who would have believed a few years ago that better solutions would be found for the extremely vacillating compromises of Nice in order to ⁇ a more democratic functioning, a more efficient decision-making, both in the European Council and in the European Commission?

Finally, who would have thought, a few years ago, that we could draw back that complex structure of the European Union, which so far rests on 16 different forms of decision-making — directives, decisions, framework programs and the like — that inflation of legislative instruments and drastically simplify to the 6 instruments now inscribed in the European Constitution.

In other words, colleagues, when we can draw a conclusion, it is the following. Much of the ambition we had at the summit of Laken, at the establishment of the Convention, was rewarded, although we must dare to admit, today here in the hemisphere, that we have not been right in all points. For example, it would have been much more beautiful, I think, if much more qualified majorities were provided, for example in the field of taxation or in the field of social policy. It would also have been better if easier methods were developed for certain parts. I am speaking especially about the third part, that of the policy areas.

It might also have been desirable to give a stronger impetus in the Constitution in order to provide the Union in the future with the necessary own, autonomous, financial resources. This will be especially evident in the coming days, weeks and months when negotiating the financial prospects. These negotiations on the financial prospects would have been incredibly much easier if more own financial resources had been created for the European Union through the European Constitution.

But I think that we have liberated the most important in any case, and moreover, that we have achieved and strengthened the most important. What is the most important thing in the European Constitution? A European Union is coming where the Community method is the basis and remains and is further strengthened. That European Union will be prepared to remain operational for the coming decades.

We must also acknowledge — which is also one of the most important things — that the European Union can become more democratic, more efficient and more transparent. No one will be able to challenge that qualification unless one has misunderstood it or unless one is of obvious bad will.

We must also answer the following questions: why all these questions, all these doubts persist? Why so much criticism, especially in a number of countries of the European Union that surround us?

I can admit that the symbolic value hidden behind the terminology “Constitution” or behind the introduction of new symbols for the Union is considered by some to be insufficient. I can also admit that exceptionally, the enlargement arouses in some a feeling of alienation, even though it has nothing to do with the adoption of the European Constitution. Furthermore, it must be recognised that the Union will not change in substance from the first day of the entry into force of the Constitution. I want to emphasize that the effects of the adoption of the Constitution will not be as tangible as when the introduction of the euro, for example, or when the removal of borders.

As time passes, we will see that the European countries, with this Constitution, will cooperate in a much closer way. I also believe that the institutions are at the height. Citizens and ⁇ , gradually, will benefit from the added value resulting from a European Union that offers answers to issues that cross national borders and whose work will be done in a much more efficient way.

This is also the reason why we will organize an information campaign that will be launched in a few days through the radio, in newspapers, magazines, post offices. This is an important element to inform but it will not be "post factum" since there are still many parliaments, at the regional and community levels, who will have to respond positively to this European Constitution. Indeed, we need a pedagogical approach followed in order to be able to explain in all serenity the content of the Constitution and to put into practice its value and its meaning.

Dear colleagues, the meaning and content of this Constitution have already aroused many debates, rightly but also wrongly, relevant and sometimes entirely next to the question. Some countries practice both information and disinformation. Some considerations related to the European current, whether it is the enlargement or socio-economic development, are devoted to the Constitution. However, in fact, they arise only from previous decisions that have nothing to do with the Constitution or are the consequence of current legislation existing in the European Union.

For example, speculation about a possible alternative is running well in many countries. A plan B. Wouldn’t it be better without the Constitution? If the “No” prevailed, could we not, after further negotiations, ⁇ better results? These are the questions posed in some countries today. In fact, it is only the opposite that convinces me: there is no alternative or plan B. A renegotiation would not at all result in a better solution, in better results. Breaking the treaty would break a hard-fought balance between small and large Member States, between new and old Member States, and between supporters of a more community-based approach, like us, and those of a more intergovernmental approach. In fact, the Constitution creates a framework allowing the European Union and its Member States to continue their development. This is not a point of arrival, but the adoption of this European Constitution is rather a new starting point. To question this outcome would cause problems and would be like imploring decline. Europe would be weakened, paralyzed, and the current socio-economic progress would be annihilated. Belgium now meets the challenge perfectly because we have contributed in particular to obtaining the horizontal social clause and the introduction of a legal basis for services of general interest.

It is therefore obviously up to each Member State to approve the Treaty according to its own procedures. We must respect this freedom but today, with your approval, I hope, I am convinced that we will make the right decision that can also, in ten days, in two weeks, inspire other Member States.

I thank you.