Paris, 15 June 2005.- The WEU Assembly held a debate on Wednesday on the consequences of the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes in the referendums on the EU’s Constitutional Treaty. Most of the speakers in the debate stressed that the rejection of the treaty should not be seen as an obstacle to developing the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). They felt it could be attributed to a failure to explain the issues properly and that this should be put right.
 
In presenting a report on “Parliamentary debates and trends in public opinion on the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe” (the drafting of which had been completed prior to the referendums in France and The Netherlands), Lord Russell-Johnston, Rapporteur (United Kingdom/Liberal Group) pointed out that there was nothing in the referendums to suggest that Europe should “cease in its movement towards integrated defence”. He agreed with Mr Andrea Manzella (Italy/Socialist Group) who said there was no “umbilical cord” that attached the ESDP to the Constitution and that work on developing the ESDP could continue in parallel to efforts to find a solution to the “constitutional problems”. Mr Bart van Winsen (Netherlands/Federated Group) stressed that most Dutch people were in favour of European cooperation on defence policy. Lord Russell-Johnston said that a Eurobarometer opinion poll had found that over three quarters of European citizens wanted Europe to have a common defence policy that would allow it to act without the involvement of the United States.
 
However, like Lord Russell-Johnston, a number of speakers were worried about the rift between European leaders and ordinary citizens which had been exposed by the results of the referendums in France and the Netherlands. Mr Mato Arlovic (Croatia) believed that governments had to react by explaining to people the importance of the peaceful reunification of Europe. Sir Teddy Taylor (United Kingdom/Federated Group) fully agreed, emphasising the need to respond to the message from the electorate. To fail to do so would be “letting down the people and letting down democracy” he said, adding that it was a plain fact that there was “a significant gap between the politicians and governments and the people”. For Mr Edouardo Ferro Rodrigues (Portugal/Socialist Group) the governments were not showing European solidarity, preferring instead to promote their own national interests.
 
Mrs Vilija Aleknaite (Lithuania/Federated Group), the co-Rapporteur, said people could not simply pretend that nothing had happened. What now had to be done was to analyse the results, alleviate people’s fears and work towards a compromise. She was wholly in agreement with José Manuel Barroso (the President of the European Commission) about the fact that there was no plan B, but she suggested that there could be a plan D, meaning democracy and dialogue. It was necessary to “take a short pause − not for resignation but for reflection” she said. Mr Murat Mercan (Turkey) agreed on the need to analyse the real reasons why the Constitution had been rejected, but warned against the temptation to view it as a “scapegoat” that would slow down the process of integration.