Gianfranco Fini, Italian Deputy Prime Minister, Vice-President of the European Convention

Question: Are you confident that the Italian Presidency will be able to present the New European Constitution by the end of December?
 
Gianfranco Fini: The Italian Presidency is committed to do so for two reasons. The first reason is not as one might imagine the prestige for Italy of hosting the event again, after the treaties of Rome in 1957.

The reason is that if we do not succeed by the end of the year or by the end of January 2004 at the latest, even if this overlaps with the Irish Presidency, to constitutionalise the European Treaties, we will risk seriously upsetting the process of European re-unification and, as a consequence may risk aggravating a wave of anti-European feeling and turning public opinion against the European project.

There have been many countries, in particular the ten which are about to enter the EU, who have worked alongside the European Convention to reach the goal of European unification, and there has been a great deal of discussion on the matter. So, if we get to the elections and there is still no text, European citizens and even those of other countries might start to say that Europe as a project is not a serious one. While Italy is wholeheartedly committed to respecting the December timetable, and it is a great pleasure for us that Rome is once again to host the event, we are aware of the risks involved should we not be able to do so.
It’s a technical issue and all agree that it is essential that the work for the Intergovernmental Conference is completed within the Italian Presidency or in the early stages of the Irish, so as to allow at least three months for the necessary legal arrangements for the European Parliamentary elections which are to take place in May. So we have very little time.” 

Question: What issues in the current draft is Italy not satisfied with?

Gianfranco Fini: It should be remembered that the Intergovernmental Conference which opens on Saturday is unlike those which precede it. The Convention has been preparing for the Conference for the past sixteen months and not to take this fact into consideration and the agreements reached, would be like a football team saying that what had happened in the first half was irrelevant and to suggest re-starting the match all over again. The position of the Italian Government on the issues raised during the work of the convention has been expressed throughout. Some of our views have been accepted, others rejected, and others have ended in compromise. We believe that the final document drawn up at Salonika provides an excellent starting point for the Inter-Governmental Conference.

However, as we have already stressed to our partners regarding voting procedure: ‘Let’s remember that voting at IGC must be unanimous’. The Italian Presidency is therefore not prepared to start a ‘shopping list” in which each government adds the changes it wants to see made. Because if we start in that way, we’ll only open a Pandora’s box and it will be as if the work of the Convention had never taken place. We have said that if any government believes that there are important points that need to be amended, they are free to make their proposals, bearing in mind however, that they will also have to demonstrate that there is sufficiently wide consensus on the issue to suggest that unanimous agreement is likely.

On the basis of these qualifications, the Italian government does not have any issues to put forward to the convention requiring amendment.

It needs to be stressed that this is a matter of principle and therefore a question to which we give considerable importance. In the premises (of the constitution) reference is made to religious tradition and we believe that this should, for the purposes of intellectual integrity, be defined in more precise terms.
 
Question: Why are you so concerned about this issue?

Because the convention has taken a step further with respect to what was discussed at Nice. There, European spiritual values in general were discussed, whereas the convention refers to religious heritage and defines its values, beginning with respect for each individual.

If, having decided that the values in question are religious, one should, out of regard for historical truth, not shy away from defining these explicitly. It needs to be said that these value derive from our Jewish and Christian tradition, as it is European history we are talking about, and European cultural identity is deeply-rooted in those values.

Question: But, have not many already questioned the Vatican’s explicit request that politicians, especially those in Europe, use their powers to incorporate religious and Christian values into the constitution?

Gianfranco Fini: There are the teachings of the Church from which a catholic politician should, I believe, take inspiration. However it is not a matter of religious faith but a question of identifying the origin of shared European values. The secular nature of our Institutions is not under discussion here. Even if there are Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists as well as Christians and Jews in Europe, if we want to find a deep-rooted historical identity which will make Europeans feel united, we still have to trace back to the fundamental values of Judaism and Christianity. In the words of secular wisdom: ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesars’” and in this case ‘give unto God what is God’s’.”

Question: Who from the convention will be at the IGC?

Gianfranco Fini: We have invited the President of the Commission as both an observer and a participant but the vote resides with the member states. The President of the European Parliament and the President of the European Commission will be present because there are three institutions involved: the heads of state and government, the Commission and the European Parliament. And therefore, it is only right that there should, as was the case with the Convention, be a debate. However, the final decision remains the prerogative of the heads of state.

Question: The German view is that there is  no need to discuss any of the issues?

Gianfranco Fini: We are of a similar view. We have said, the President of the Republic Ciampi, and Prime Minister Berlusconi have said, and I, as representative of the Italian delegation, also say, that we are not prepared to accept any compromise that will undermine the constitution as it stands. What is important here is that the text finalised by the convention is the best possible, if not the only possible text. We will of course discuss any proposals for improvement, but I repeat, those who put forwards such proposals must ensure agreement is unanimous, or at least be certain of a consensus sufficient to suggest that a unanimous vote is not only possible but highly likely. Let me give you an example: let’s imagine that a government wished to re-open a debate and all issues were put to a majority vote. There would be no sense in putting forward a petition only to discover that it enjoys little support and remains isolated. The groundwork carried out by the convention has already provided us with an indication of the points which are likely to gain consensus and lead to a unanimous vote.

Question: Is it not a risk that the IGC will carry less weight and have less importance than the convention in the end?

Gianfranco Fini: Who decided to go ahead with the Convention? It was the government heads of state who agreed that Europe was to become a 26/27 member union. In more journalistic terms we need to ‘breathe life into’ the European constitution. The Heads of State at Laeken decided that in order to achieve this great historical goal, a convention would be established without precedent in the history of Europe. In fact the only precedent is that of the Philadelphia convention in the US.

Your comment is less relevant if you bear in mind that it was at Laeken that the second half of the match, so to speak, got under way and that the starting whistle was blown by the heads of government.
While it was not an IGC conference, those involved were government heads of state.

Question: Are you concerned about ratification? Will there be a referendum in Italy?

Gianfranco Fini: I believe this point is of utmost importance because the European constitution needs to be democratically approved and cannot be imposed.
Ratification is therefore a pre-requisite. However, individual member states will be given the freedom to decide, in accordance with their national constitution, whether ratification requires parliamentary legislation or needs to be put to popular referendum.

As you know, there is no provision in the Italian Constitution for popular referenda. Of course parliament may decide that in order to consolidate consensus for ratification, to put the issue to the Italian people. However, if we should decide that parliamentary ratification is sufficient, one could not then say that this was not in accordance with our constitution. It is not a question of whether we should put it to a referendum or not, the fundamental issue here is that it must be democratically ratified.

National referenda are certainly useful, although I personally am sceptical as to the possibility of holding a referendum on the same date in all member states. What might happen if one member were to reject the proposal and the other twenty-four were to confirm? We would have to go on. Experience has demonstrated that in the case of such a scenario, we should allow the country concerned to change a ‘no’ vote to a ‘yes’ vote at a later stage.

Question: How should these divisions over the future of EU foreign policy decision making be dealt with?

Gianfranco Fini: Look, Europe in the embryonic stages as far as the creation of a common political identity is concerned. I am convinced that in the future, I cannot say when exactly, we will have EU representatives at the UN, together with representatives of state. While there has been considerable progress towards this goal, there is still some way to go. As was verified during the Iraq conflict, Europe is still someway from having a common foreign policy. To avoid such divisions, there needs to be the will to create a common political identity. However, we cannot expect this to happen in the passing of a day with the wave of a magic wand.

Question: What were the most difficult moments during the work of the convention?

Gianfranco Fini: The most difficult moment was when the constitution was to be written by the government representatives concerned, and war broke out in Iraq.

Obviously our opinions on the Iraq question were very much divided, however, great effort was made to overcome our differences and to commit ourselves to the establishment of a common goal. Indeed it was precisely because of our divisions that we came to realize the importance of working together to fulfil our common political purpose; the greater the divisions, the greater our political commitment became.

Question: Is the EU to act as a political counter-balance to the US?

Gianfranco Fini: Look, you should not view the EU in terms of being a political protagonist today, and, as I hope, a military power in the future, which will compete against the USA, as this would prove to be a strategic error.

A politically unified and more militarily prepared Europe must be allied with the US, and act as a second pillar within NATO. NATO already has one pillar, this being North America, and in the future, Europe must provide the second. It’s not that we should be presenting ourselves as an alternative to the US, on the contrary, we should be working together. In other words it’s not the case of America having too much influence, more a case of Europe not having sufficient.

Question: Europe is keeping a close eye on the Italian government coalition, and the relationship between the parties involved. How would you respond to those who maintain that the coalition is fragile?

Gianfranco Fini: I believe the facts speak for themselves. Throughout the time I spent working with the convention (and I believe that I participated and spoke in all the sessions), I spoke in the name of the government and there was not one occasion in which someone got up to ask me ‘Why did you say that?’ That itself answers the question but I would like to add something. Italy has always had a European tradition. When the Italian President Ciampi reminds us of our duties and responsibilities as founding members, he does so because he knows that within Italian politics there are few issues on which consensus can be reached more easily than those relating to our integration with Europe.

I say this because it became evident during the work of the Convention that the Italian delegation which included Lamberto Dini and vice-president Giuliano Amato, were able to jointly compose certain passages of the convention for the very reason that we were all of a like mind.

As far as the representatives of the other member states were concerned, however, it was immediately clear from their remarks who was from the conservative camp and who not.

Italy, on the other hand, spoke for the most part with a common voice.

• Previous article
• Next article