When Commission President Josè Manuel Barroso met with his Commissioners in a castle outside Brussels last week, it was not to discuss the future of Europe. It was rather to brief his “Cabinet” on his plans to get the Commission’s act straight.

Europe “must be put back to work,” he said the following day in a speech that outlined his aims to cut red tape, open the services market and politicise the Union. “This should not be a bureaucratic or technocratic exercise, it has to be a political venture,” he explained.

As expected, the last thing on Barroso’s mind was the EU Constitution. Short of burying it, Barroso placed the dead Constitution on the backburner to be revived in the future in some other form. “Some politicians don’t like to face facts,” he said, referring to backers of the Constitution. “There won’t be a constitutional treaty in the near future.”

Barroso’s “lack of spirit”

This attitude did not go down well with those Members of the European Parliament who believe in the indispensability of the Constitution. Speaking at a press conference the following day, MEP Andrew Duff (Lib Dems) came out strongly against Barroso, claiming that he lacked the “spirit of the Constitution”.

But they admit that they will treat the dead Constitution as “a good first draft”. Some MEPs, most prominently those on the Constitutional Committee such as Andrew Duff, Johannes Vogenhuber (Greens), Richard Corbett and Jo Leinen (both PES), have taken it upon themselves to ensure that the European Parliament takes the initiative in reviving the Constitution in whatever version possible.

They hope to retain articles concerning the decision-making process and the institutions, over which they believe there is consensus, while removing those over which no compromise could be reached. Following this exercise they envisage another convention to iron out the social model, policy areas and economic governance, leading to a final draft. Referenda would then be held on the same day in all member States in 2009, by which time they hope that each member State would have debated the new Constitution.

They did not hide the fact that they wanted a concerted effort by the Commission and the governments to set up a debating forum in each member state that would work to ensure a Yes vote in the ensuing referendum.

This is their objective. It is their best-case scenario. And, notwithstanding their clear intent in having unbalanced debates, they ought to be applauded for their democratic credentials, not only in finally coming to terms with the death of the current constitution, but also for recognising the need for people to have the final say in all member States.

Lack of political maturity

When the Maltese Parliament ratified the EU Constitution last July many thought the EU debate in Malta was dead and buried. Yet in reality, it was the Constitution that was dead, and the debate on the future of Europe only just beginning.

Behind Dr Gonzi’s bravado at Labour’s acceptance of the Constitution, there was his bewildering lack of political maturity at European level. When Dr Gonzi was ecstatically boasting how Malta was saving the Union by ratifying the Constitution, he could be counted among the few stalwarts who initially would not accept the French and Dutch rejection of the constitution. There was no reminding Dr Gonzi that unanimity is a fundamental principle for every new Treaty; that all member States must agree unanimously on every step forward towards EU consolidation; that if we do not respect the French and Dutch vetoes we should not expect others to respect our veto if and when the time comes for us to use it. Dr Gonzi was determined to be a “good European” first and no other thought would dissuade him.

One cannot fail to observe how differently Blair reacted. He immediately declared that the French and Dutch referenda had killed the Constitution, then went on to suspend the UK referendum, which he was bound to lose heavily.

The least our government could have done was the conventionally expected: suspend ratification and keep Malta a relevant player in the debate over our future. Instead, he chose to relinquish our voice in the hope that we are rewarded for our steadfastness. And this at a time when the Constitution was already dead because of the fundamental EU principle of unanimity.

So while President Barroso was calling for Plan D (for dialogue, debate, discussion and democracy), and the Commission and Council unveiled a “period of reflection,” our Prime Minister chose to skip it because, as he put it, “when we voted Yes to join the EU we were voting for the Constitution.”

It can hardly get more pathetic than that.

It has become clear now that at European level we cannot expect Dr Gonzi’s government to act effectively. We have already witnessed his government’s pathetic pleas for help in the immigrants crisis. We have no effective representation and no leadership – and we would have had even less with the proposed Constitution.

Debate over the “United States of Europe”

Many in Malta still believe that the EU debate is not important. Yet it concerns our very well being. It concerns the rules and regulations by which we are governed at European level. It concerns our decision-making power and its worth in economic terms.

We need to keep a critical eye on the many areas at different levels. We can never be complacent. Not abrasive, but strategic and wise. And when a matter of such significance as the ratification of a European Constitution is in issue, it must be debated by the whole nation.

The real debate on the future of Europe has only just begun. In some countries it is slowly maturing, yet it needs to mature much further. The project of European unification needs to be seen for what it really is. Although when Andrew Duff speaks of the “spirit of the Constitution” he doesn’t define what he really means, it is an open secret that this spirit is that of a “United States of Europe” – a unitary power to counter other world powers.

This fresh debate needs to be more frank. We need to ask whether we want a United States of Europe, or whether we can avoid the consequences of supranational governance by creating a truly new form of unification where harmonisation of standards and freedom of movement are controlled by no centralised power.

To a certain extent the future of Europe is still unwritten. We need to participate by contributing our vision. We need to evaluate the issues and establish the option that suits Malta best. Then, we can move forward with that objective in mind.

Sharon Ellul Bonici follows

Constitutional affairs in the

European Parliament

[email protected]