REFERENDUM FOR ALL

The european citizens will maybe allow to dicede themself about the costitutional changes to the Maastricht treaty

(Teh European, 12-18/05/1995)

by Rory Watson

PRESSURE is growing to involve Europe's voters in the future of the European Union by putting planned constitutional changes to the Maastricht treaty to an EU-wide referendum.

The move has the support of two of the prime ministers who negotiated the controversial treaty four years ago, and is among ideas being advanced by the European Parliament in an attempt to counter Euro scepticism and apathy among large sections of the public. It coincides with the view of newlyelected French President Jacques Chirac that the outcome of next year's Maastricht renegotiations should be put to a national referendum.

The trend is in sharp contrast to the endorsement of Maastricht three years ago, when referendums were held in only three countries - Denmark, Ireland and France - and governments felt little need to win public support and understanding for the complex decisions being negotiated.

MEPs pressing for a pan-Union referendum in 1997 or 1998 argue that it is necessary because reform of the Union is "a collective decision affecting the whole of Europe". Failig that, they offer the option of individual national referendums, or ratification by national parliaments, either on the same day or within a few days of each other.

Wilfried Martens, former Belgian prime minister and now leader of Parliament's second-largest political group, the Christian Democrats, main-tained:"I support a collective referen-dum onthe same day throughout the

Union.It must take place in all 15 countries and with the same question."

The plan has huge practical drawbacks and might do little to mollify Euro scepties. It would almost certainly result in large majorities in favour in the federalist-minded Benelux states, together with countries which benefit most from EU handouts, such as Spain, Portugal and Greece. It is possible that this could swamp the growing anti-federalist sentiment in some larger countries, including Germany, France and, above all, Britain.

Cautious backing came from Jacques Santer, Commission president and former Luxembourg premier. Introducing the Commission's analysis on the strengths and weaknesses of Maastricht, he said in Brussels on 10 May: "It would be a good idea to organise a referendum, as we are talking about collective decisions affecting all of the Union. But our citizens must be well informed beforehand so they can give a sincere answer to the question."

No practical details of how such a referendum would be organised among the EU's 367.8 million citizens are included in the proposal. Clearly one of the most controversial aspects would be if countries which voted "no" found themselves bound by the result.

Parliament will be the third, and the most adventurous, of the major EU institutions to pronounce when on Strasbourg on 17 May it discusses the faults in the Maastricht treaty, and sets out how these may be remedied.

The two institutions are set to clash with governments over the future of the national veto when the starting gun is fired in Messina on 2 June for the lengthy Maastricht renegotiations. Both want to severely curtail or even abolish the veto now used in almost 70 areas of EU activity, ranging from foreign policy and taxation to admitting new members and increasing the Union'sfinances.

MEPs are also preparing to challenge governments on defence policy. They will have to decide next week whether to back plans that would merge Europe's defence arm, the Western European Union, into the Union itself, and would provide for a European Commissioner with the specific common defence brief.

At the other end ]ie EU goveniments, whose cautious assessment of the treaty slües away from radical reform. The Commission has tried to close the huge gap by adopting a more pragmatie approach. But Santer, without seeking more powers for the Commission, has insisted its overall goal remains to ereate "a stronger and more efficient European Union, capable of welconiing more members without becoming weaker, and one with which eitizens can identify".

A good deal of common ground is emerging between the Commission and MEPS, who argue that the Union must become more efficient and openly accountable if it is to rekindle publie support and integratie potential new members from the Mediterranean and eentral and eastern Europe.