Throughout the weeks of debate in Denmark on the referendum on the Treaty of Maastricht the opinion polls invariably confirmed the uncertainty of the final result: in our report "status of the Treaty of Maastricht" which we are publishing and which is updated to the 2nd of June 1992 we state that "the result of the referendum is still uncertain because the "yes's and no's" are about 40% each with 20% undecided." The undecided ended up split almost equally except that the no's carried the day by 56.000 votes.

Given that at Maastricht the Heads of State and Government signed a legally-binding agreement which subjects its entry into force to the condition that it is ratified by all the twelve Member States of the Community the Twelve must now draw the conclusion that this Treaty will no longer enter infor force and that new negotiations have to be set in motion.

Before the new negotiation is opened serious thought must be given to three fundamental elements in respect of the reform of the Community. The first element relates to the fact that growing number of political forces is publicly convinced that the Union agreed at Maastricht will not be capable of coping with a new enlargement even if the first round of accessions were limited to the four EFTA countries (Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland). These same political forces have also declared that the next stage of Community reform will have to be brought forward to 1993, that is before the European elections in 1994 and before any new enlargement and not postponed until 1996 as was provided in Article N of the Treaty of Maastricht. One of the most important positions taken in this regard was, we recall, the amendment to the Martin resolution of 7th April 1992 subscribed by 155 MEP's of the Federalist Intergroup and another was the proposal of a working group of the European Socialist Union which insists upo

n the convening of a "constitutional conference in 1993. The second element concerns the provisions for amending the Community treaties (Article 236 EEC Treaty, Article 204 EACE Treaty and Article 96 ECSC Treaty) all confirmed by Article N of the Treaty of Maastricht which abrogates the provisions cited. The European Parliament has always contested the legitimacy of these procedures proposing instead a method of Treaty reform based on the recognition of a power of co-decision between national governments and the European Parliament: throughout the work of the inter-governmental conferences - in 1985 as well as in 1990-91 - the Assembly never ceased to propose a conciliation procedure and an amendment to Articles 236 EEC 204 EAEC and 96 ECSC. These European Parliament proposals have always been ignored by the governments. The proposal put forward by the European Socialists for a constitutional conference in 1993 directly questions the validity of Article N of the Treaty of Maastricht: the signature of this T

reaty in effect opened a new constitutional phase in European political life by demanding different procedures for all changes to the Treaty. If the Treaties of Paris, Rome and Maastricht were negotiated and signed as international agreements they nonetheless represent the Basic Law of the Community whose legal system is independent from national legal systems and which can decide itself free of the constraints of the principles of interntational law in general.

The third element has to do with the aim of the new negotiation which has become necessary following the Danish "no".

Already - one hears - the murmurings of national diplomats preaching realism and the principle of unanimity amongst all Member States. The only road to take - one would have us believe - is that of weakening the supra-national character of the Tretaty of Maastricht in order to give a guarantee to the Danes that their national identity will not be swamped by European centralism and by the power of the large Membger States in general and by Germany in particular.

We - European Federalists - are convinced that the only means of guaranteeing national identity within a United Europe - States and people - is to reaffirm the Federal goal and to draw therefrom the necessary consequences in respect of institutional reform. The Danes - but also the Italians, the Belgians, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Luxemburgers, the British, the Greeks, the Germans, the Dutch qnd the Irish - before even answering the question on their participation in the European Union now being constructed should reply to a preliminary question, namely "do you believe that the Union of a certain number of European countries on a Federal model could serve the interests of Europe as a whole?"

Eight years ago, on 24 May 1984, President Mitterand took up the running of the Spinelli plan by declaring - in the name of France - that he was willing to defend and to construct European Union "among those willing". At their last meeting President Mitterand and Chancellor Kohl evoked the vision of the 24 May speech by declaring jointly that European Union must be realised even if some of the Twelve refused to belong. We are convinced that it is now the duty of the European Parliament to complete the work on the constitutional basis of European Union (Colombgo report), by relying on the Spinelli plan of 14 February 1984. A European inter-parliamentary conference should thereafter mobilise the consensus of National Parliaments on the proposals of the European Parliament. With this democratic consensus the constitutional conference called for by the European Socialists could be convened and adequate procedures set up to guarantee the "equal partnership" of national governments and the European Paliament in re

spect of the European Federal constitution.

For those willing.