Four contributions to bear in mind. The work being conducted by the Inter-Governmental Conference in charge of mapping out EU institutional reforms is due to be suspended for a few weeks, to be resumed in September. During the month of July, the newly installed French Presidency has been ushering in its working programme and has unveiled its first reports. These mainly take the form of questionnaires for the delegations. However, they have succeeded in causing a certain amount of unease amongst the « smaller countries »,which are somewhat wary of the emphasis on the word « efficiency". These countries seem to think that the French Presidency's focus on the efficiency of the reformed institutions is somehow calculated to alter the current set-up and swing the balance in favour of the « larger » countries thereby putting more pressure on the « smaller » ones.
At the same time as the IGC, the debate on the future of Europe (over and above the reform process due to reach its conclusion at the December Summit in Nice) has continued and even grown in intensity over the last two months. As there was so much activity on the European scene in June and July, we have not been able to cover these new developments as much as we would have liked. Nonetheless, in early September we will be offering our readers an insight into the main after-effects in recent weeks of statements made by the German Foreign Minister the French President (statements which have in turn given tangible shape to the fillip given by initiatives from the likes of Jacques Delors, Helmuth Schmidt and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing). From the outset, the French Presidency firmly stressed the need to avoid mixing up the reform due to emerge from the current IGC with the longer term debate: The two processes are quite separate and the Presidency is called upon to bring the immediate reform to a successful conclusion between now and December, together with its four key themes (the "closer cooperation" that was added at the Feira Summit to the three "leftovers from Amsterdam"). The package features other items forming part of the same set of measures, not least the European Commission proposal for the European political parties. However, the EU's executive arm has itself warned against "overloading the boat". It has also stressed that the reorganisation of the Treaty and any definition of the role of the Charter of fundamental rights should be a matter for the "post-Nice" epoch.
This now seems clear enough in people's minds: it is generally accepted that the reform in the process of being negotiated should not be confused with a long-term debate. We therefore see a need to ensure readers receive the fullest possible information about the main developments in the debate, without any risk of confusion with the proceedings of the current IGC. Our decision is based on four factors: a) the strong argument the European Commission President, Romano Prodi, has made about his institution's role and its impact in the Europe of the future (this comes in wake of the controversy President Chirac excited when he spoke of creating an inter-governmental secretariat for the future "European advance guard"); b) the personal comments made by Michel Barnier, European Commissioner for Institutional Reform, about the "three paths" in the Europe-to-be; c) the unexpected fuss caused in Italy by an article written by Commissioner Monti, with all the main State authorities, from the Foreign Office to the Prime Minister, from the President of the Republic to the Italian member of the European Central Bank board, reacting to or echoing the sentiments expressed in the article (for several days, the front pages were filled with topics generally ignored or hardly touched upon in normal time); d) the vital additions and details Jacques Delors offered to flesh out his view of the "Federation of Nation States", and in reaction to most of the demands aroused by his vision, which triggered off the major debate.
In the wake of these four contributions, it may be just as well to set the record straight..
Four reasons for being confident. It is to be hoped that last week's column did not give the impression that everything is on the blink in the European Commission's relationship with the world of sport. Ms Reding was right to claim that more has been achieved within the space of nine months than in all the previous years with a view to promoting better understanding between the European institutions and the sports sector. A dialogue has been established and the two sides now agree that they have similar views on many issues. A firm foundation has now been established: in a crystal-clear and almost formal way, the European Commission has recognised the social role of sporting activities and their importance for young people and now plans to take due account of this status.
By referring to this firm basis as being universally accepted, our intention was to stress areas where we believe the declarations in favour of sporting activities have not been given any tangible shape. To sum up, we feel that a) the concept of "discrimination" as it is understood in the business sector has no meaning for sports, where rules based on gender, age and nationality are quite essential. Account should be taken of this in any decision-making and an attempt should be made to overcome the unproductive implications of the Bosman ruling; b)it has to be recognised that in the world of professional football, ties between clubs and players are stronger and more permanent than in any other economic sphere, for the assets of the clubs are represented almost exclusively by these ties. If multiannual contracts can be broken off without any guarantee of high levels of compensation, these assets just disappear: small and medium-sized clubs could lose their key players overnight. Even the bigger clubs would no longer be able to make any long-term plans about the composition of their teams and build up teams with which the "fans can identify" (as Ms Reding rightfully said).
Apart from these key items, the views Commissioner Mario Monti expressed on April 17 (to the Commission-sponsored conference on sport), about applying competition rules to sport, are extremely encouraging. They are in keeping with the open-minded approach adopted by the Deputy Director-General for Competition, Jean-François Pons, when he made a statement, in October 1999, to the 26th conference organised by the Fordham Corporate Law Institute. Mentioning the names of officials working on the touchy issue of relations between the world of sport and competition policy (Marie-José Bicho, Eric Van Ginderhachter, Jubert Gambs, Justin Wooodward, together with Jaime Andreu from the Directorate-General for Education and Culture), he showed that officials are not all lacking in any understanding of the hard facts about the world of sports. There was much less of a separation between the economic dimension (where standard Treaty rules apply) and the organisation of sporting competitions (where the independence of sports associations and other relevant authorities is respected). Moreover, this attitude, chimes with recent Court of Justice judgements.
What we think is still missing is a comprehensive understanding of the interaction between the two dimensions.. For example, the issue of the period covered by contracts and compensation for transfers is obviously an economic one, but it does have a direct impact on the composition of teams and hence sports performances and the scope for promoting training for young people. And this is where due account should be given to the specific nature of sport, as enshrined in the Amsterdam Treaty and called for by EU leaders.
Clearing up a misunderstanding. The record needs to be set straight about the misunderstanding that has sprung up about the rice issue. It is not so much that rice is more important than other types of traditional farm produce in Europe. However, we see a need to avoid the Commission's approach to this issue being spurned per se, as it to some extent a reflection of the shape of things to come. It is unnatural for Europe to import more and more rice from other parts of the world whilst Community rice stocks are expanding to an extent that is putting a question mark over the future of the crop (which has to be retained for major environmental reasons in some regions). The Commission's plan is to make it more difficult or more expensive to import certain products from third countries and also to end the intervention system. The idea is to encourage European rice growers to produce for the market, to take the trouble to seek outlets, and to command respect for quality instead of just producing for the warehouses.
However, this approach has been totally rejected by the producer countries. Where is the misunderstanding ? In the lack of any coincidence between the two key strands of the operation. We think it is obvious that the demise of intervention should be backed up by better protection at borders. The intervention system will disappear only if rice enjoys the same protection as other farm crops in Europe. But there is no sign at all of this dual imperative in the Commission plan. Better external protection has to be negotiated according to WTO rules with the main supplier, the Untied States, which is obviously opposed to any such idea. It remains to be seen whether the EU Member States are prepared to foot the bill for this European agricultural crop. This same question also applies to most of Europe's farming activities
.See you in September Ferdinando Riccardi