Conversations about constitutional change generally emerge on the eve of general elections, like with controversies over the building of a metro. They open up space for arguments which can have little negative impact since one and all (or almost) believe that the matter at issue is not going to mature in the near future. The same ritual is likely to be repeated in the coming months.

Here, I'll simply repeat what I've already said many times... possibly even in this blog. Personally, I don't see any value in undertaking constitutional changes today or tomorrow, if we have not first lived through a period in which constitutional provisions have been observed in word and spirit. Before all discussion about changes can make sense, it would perhaps be better for all political sides to agree on a listing of those areas where constitutional provisions have been basically ignored. And the discussion should focus on why this happened, where and when it did, and about what could be done to ensure that the constitution is truly being respected in its entirety.

***

PARTISAN VIRTUES

Partisanship is part and parcel of parliamentary democracy for this necessarily rests on party organizations that remain alive because there is a solidarity between their members - a solidarity that has to be shown not only when matters are just fine, but also when trouble brews.

Now, difficulties emerge when people consider that a party's policy choices are not being satisfactory.  There's the trouble that arises because of personal or political mistakes made by party members which however are not motivated by underhanded considerations. And then there's the trouble arising from the behaviour and "mistaken" decisions taken by some members, under suspicion of personal ulterior motives or operating in their shadow.

In the three cases, it is in the order of things for partisanship to be exercised so as to safeguard a party's unity and coherence. In all three cases too, limits have to be placed regarding how far partisanship should be taken, for this quality cannot be considered as an absolute value.

***

QUO VADIS EU?

The EU still proclaims its values and truths with its customary conviction, to which we're habituated. Still, when it comes to putting them into practice, matters seem to congeal.

In efforts against climate warming; in the management of the digital world; in the regulation of globalisation; on immigration controls; in relations with the US, Russia and China; regarding a defence policy and the war in Ukraine; regarding the enlargement of the Union itself towards non-member European countries, among other issues, the Union finds itself stuck when having to move forward; or it first makes a step and follows that with half a step back; or quite clearly makes it apparent that there are internal divisions.

Fractures are evident at the level of the European Council and the Council of Ministers, as well as at that of the European Parliament. The exchanges that occurred over the Mercoscur Treaty with the countires of Latin America and whether it was going to be ratified and how, showed that currently, there is confusion about the direction the EU should take. Similarly, with the controversy in the Parliament about whether "pro-European" parties should vote with the "extreme" right on major issues.