The Commission that is being prepared for us. All we have to do is give one example, that of the European Commission, to show to what extent institutional reform as foreseen by the conclusions of the Helsinki Summit would be unable to resolve any of the real problems raised today in Europe. According to well-known guidelines, reform would simply consist of providing for the Commission to be composed of one member for each Member State nationality, without any overall reflection or decision expected on radical revision of the way the Commission works. The Council Presidency confirmed this guideline. Even the Dehaene Report is deadlocked on this point. So let us have a closer look at the Commission that is being prepared for us.
Everyone acknowledges that the Commission represents the mainspring of the Community institutional system. It is the most innovative part, which gives the system its character and specificity. Its authority is founded on a delicate balance in its composition and its powers. The Commission is of course independent of national governments but at the same time the States recognise themselves in it as they know that, in defending the European general interest, it takes into account the specific interests of each Member State. In the future Commission of 27 to 28 members, or more, the countries that created the united Europe and that, for the past 50 years, have been building it up year by year, will only represent a small minority. Six members out of 28, in an organisation that deliberates by simple majority, amounts to less than nothing. The simplistic rule of "one Commissioner per country", and no more, would have the result that the large countries of the current Union will no longer have the feeling that they are fairly represented, and they will have the impression that the Union has become an institution which eludes them completely. At the arrival point of the current project, former Yugoslavia alone would carry as much weight in the future Commission as Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Spain together! The calculation is a simple one: Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia/Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina. Montenegro is now encouraged to leave the FRY, and Kosovo is calling for independence, which would entitle it to "its" Commissioner. This would bring the total to 8 European Commissioners for former Yugoslavia alone.
The countries that have made up united Europe for the past 50 years … Could this new European Commission continue to play the role of a "European government" according to the image often used by President Romano Prodi? His definition irritates certain political forces, but it is not so far from the truth on certain aspects. The Commission has the exclusive right of own-initiative and the Council can only distance itself from its proposals by majority decision (this particularity of the institutional functioning is often neglected or forgotten). The Commission manages common policies and, in some cases, it may decide against a majority of Member States (contrary qualified majority is required to oppose its decisions). It authorises or prohibits State aid and mergers between companies. It does happen that a given government is not in agreement with one of its decisions, but no-one challenges the Commission's authority as everyone knows that the search for common interest is, at times, to the advantage of some, and, at other times, to the advantage of others. Would this also be true of a Commission with 30 or 35 Commissioners, where the overwhelming majority belongs to the new Member States?
These new Member States will of course designate as Commission members leading personalities whose impartiality is above suspicion. But one would have to be very naïve to imagine that this learned assembly of around thirty members would be able to "govern" tomorrow's EU by simple majority, and that the countries which - we repeat - have been building up Europe for the past 50 years would feel fairly represented by the small minority of their compatriots within such an assembly. The role of the Commission would remain important, but it could not continue to represent the driving force of European construction, and the interest of the "large countries" in this respect would be considerably weakened.
Similar questions are raised for the Court of Justice, which sets out European law and whose decisions are imposed on national legal systems. We shall not speak of the Council because, in this case at least, the requirement of reform is already acknowledged. …/…
The conclusion is simple: "small" institutional reform which would not be accompanied by "major discussion on the recasting of institutional architecture" (to take a phrase used by the Portuguese Council Presidency) would be tantamount in practice to destroying the fundamental pillar of the Community method, with an inevitable slide towards intergovernmental cooperation.
If the "large" members want a security and defence Europe … There is no doubt about it. It is considerations of this kind that brought a certain number of prime ministers and other personalities to launch the messages they launched and that we recalled yesterday under this same heading. But a second reason, which is just as imperative, leads to a growing number of governments now recommending "flexibility". This word is clearly an "understatement" given the importance of the project. It is true that "enhanced cooperation" is not a more fortunate definition as it recalls the ineffective and unusable legal construction chosen by the Amsterdam Treaty. This is why Jacques Delors now prefers the term "avant-garde", which states what it means. Whatever the definition, the important thing is that the Member States that plan to make the great European venture move forward know that some intitiatives are not possible with 30 members. Do we need to recall that not even the current Fifteen members all take part in the essential aspects of the united Europe, such as single currency and the Schengen agreement? And that some ambitious projects, like minimum taxation on financial returns or energy tax, are still blocked because of opposition from some countries.
So that Europe may decide where its borders will be. At the present time, the "new frontiers" are represented by the Security and Defence Europe (as well as by the project of a common area of freedom, justice and security). Over and beyond unanimous declarations of circumstance, the national opinions and positions on this objective are far from unanimous. For some, the aim is that of a European army, of limited size but operational. Let us assume that a certain number of "large countries" of the EU had been particularly marked by the way in which the NATO intervention in Serbia and Kosovo had been decided and implemented. The United States chose the moment and the arrangements for the intervention, the size and the duration of the strikes. The destruction of bridges over the Danube has damaged the economy of several countries applying for EU membership. The responsibility and the burden of reconstruction now mainly falls on the European Union and on its Member States, as well as the hosting of refugees. The way things are working in Kosovo (and also in Bosnia, moreover) are almost fully shouldered by the same countries. It is quite normal that the Union should have a special responsibility for reconstruction of areas located at its borders. But is not to be ruled out that, in some capitals, it is today considered that the same Union should tomorrow have similar responsibility in taking decisions concerning military action and the implementation of such action, and that such decisions could have been quite different.
A certain number of Member States do not share these concerns and remain resolutely hostile to any development of the European Union along these lines. The European Parliament's debate on the results of the Helsinki Summit on this subject were significant and perfectly enlightening. Danish national Mr Bonde felt that the Helsinki Summit had, in practice, set an "European army" in place, and he had expressed the hope that there will be a "people that is brave enough to say no to the revised Treaty". Mr Seppänen, from Finland, had said that the EU "had become military" and already practically has a ministerial "War Council", acting without any democratic control.
These are of course highly respectable opinions. But who seriously believes that the opposition of the very pleasant Mr Bonde and the fiery Mr Seppänen will make the large (and other) countries draw back if they consider it indispensable that Europe today should develop along these lines also? In some capitals it has been said: we are moving forward, come what may. The dividing line between the future avant-garde of Europe and the reticent countries does not separate the current Member States from the future Member States, but comes within the EU we know. This is a question of ambition and political determination. For some Member States, Europe must have its word to say and its weight to bear in major world affairs. Others do not have this ambition. And one can understand why Mr Juncker has chosen the figure eight for the number of countries that should, in his view, be enough to form an avant-garde.
We shall conclude this overview at the beginning of next week by taking stock of the controversial issue of the geographic borders of the European Union.
Ferdinando Riccardi.