The report he drew up along with British liberal member Andrew Duff argues that the EU charter should come into force by 2009, to pave the way for future enlargements and generate a better institutional structure for the union.

The plan, supported by 385 MEPs, with 125 deputies voting against and 51 abstentions, is a response to the 2005 decision by the member states to hold a "reflection period" over the fate of the treaty, after it was rejected by French and Dutch citizens.

Its main idea is to organise various parliamentary and citizens' forums to keep the issue alive on the public agenda.

What should come out of it?

Deputies acknowledged that the debates to be held during this and next year can result in different decisions - such as binning the constitutional project or re-starting its ratification in the current version.

However, a majority of MEPs supported the view that the "positive" outcome of the reflection would be to maintain the constitution's text as it stands now, while taking measures to "meet the concerns" expressed in France or the Netherlands.

These measures could include extra protocols or declarations about the EU's social model to be added to the constitution, a possibility also recently mooted by German chancellor Angela Merkel.

During the debate about the report on Wednesday (18 January), several MEPs rebuffed such ideas, with British eurosceptic MEP Nigel Farrage arguing "This refusal to accept reality is a form of moral deafness. Sooner or later they will wake up, but it will be with a horrendous hangover."

Hints at a new text unsuccessful

The rapporteurs tried to add a note about a possible rewriting of the 2004 constitution, mainly in the charter's third part which deals with EU policies.

However, the centre-right and socialist groups refused such suggestions.

Still, Mr Duff said he could observe at least a "growing realisation across the parliament - including in the German circles - that the present text is unlikely to be come into force as it currently stands."

Clash with national parliaments

In their final vote, MEPs changed the wording of proposals concerning co-operation with national parliaments.

The amendment was filed in reaction to the negative sentiments expressed by several national MPs prior to the vote, as well as in a letter by speakers of the German, Austrian and Finnish assemblies this week.

The latter told the MEPs that they had agreed only one common debate, not on a series of such forums, and that these should merely be an "exchange of views" and not be aimed at presenting a common position with the European Parliament to EU leaders.

Mr Duff said on Wednesday he found such a reaction "curious."

He added that many national parliamentarians would participate in the envisaged debates and so "they will have a say in the decisions about the future of Europe."