Brussels, 19/09/2000 (Agence Europe) - As previously indicated (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.6), Jacques Delors discussed, on Monday afternoon, with the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee the wider institutional options for the Europe of tomorrow, while broaching the immediate problems that must be resolved at the Nice Summit to continue this debate in the future. The President of the Constitutional Committee, Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra), furthermore underlined that maybe never like today Europe is faced with the problems that should see "the present and future so closely intertwined", with an IGC on which depends 'the functioning or paralysis, the reinforcement or decline of institutions and the process" of building Europe. Mr Delors developed a reasoning on three levels:
- Improvements to the functioning of the EU which does not require a revision of the Treaty,
- EMU. In this context, Mr Delors underlined in particular the deficiencies in the coordination of macro-economic policies, and the role that the European Commission must play in this area. "I never believed that the Euro Group could do it, it does not have the means", said the former President of the Commission, adding: "The Economic and Finance Ministers must realise that they are part of a Community, they must rekindle a close relationship with the Commission, which is not just a provider of services, and with the Parliament". As for the voice of the Euro to the outside, Mr Delors noted that there is not one country where the one person who speaks on the issue monetary policy is the Governor of the Central bank.
- The functioning of the "institutional triangle" Council. Commission/Parliament which is at the basis of Community method. Mr Delors, while noting that the Heads of State and Government "are never as good and as pleased as when they have to deal with specific questions", called for the relaunch of a "true" General Affairs Council that prepares the European Councils, which drafts a visible agenda and that set out the priorities. I had proposed that the Deputy Prime Ministers gather together every fifteen days in Brussels, but this formula was considered "excessive", recalled Mr Delors, who felt that the Minister for Foreign Affairs with a mandate from their government (even in the case of coalition governments) are in a position to gather every fifteen days and do this work.
- The intergovernmental conference underway. Mr Delors affirmed, over the "three Amsterdam leftovers" and "reinforced cooperation" added to the agenda of the IGC:
- A Commission of 30-35 members "is not possible". "At the start, I said to myself: why not?. I thought: could you see yourself with 35 Commissioners? I could only envisage this for a moment". According to him, it would be for the Commission President to ensure that, over a fifteen year period, all the Member States would have chosen a Commissioner. Furthermore, the participation in a General Affairs Council having found its role once again would ensure the participation of all the Member States in all the aspects of European policy. The Commission "is not a government, but a team that must everyday think of the European interest, after have listened to the concerns of the Member States", felt Mr Delors.
- In the Council, it will require a re-weighting of votes taking into account the population of the larger countries, or a double majority. The family spirit being "even more difficult at 30", it will require finding balanced solutions, so that no one is frustrated;
- In the extension of qualified majority, "we would not go very far", but progress should be possible in terms of research, environment, a part of taxation and maybe some of Social policy. Qualified majority voting should carry codecision for the Parliament, as if we apply more complicated rules, "we could get lost". To the British Labour member Mr Corbett who asked if it would not be possible to avoid resorting to reinforced cooperation by generalising qualified majority voting, Mr Delors answered: the recourse to qualified majority "must be in accordance with the peoples wished; if the people seen in it a veil, we are moving towards a revolt (…) qualified majority progresses with the feeling of necessity" (as in the case of the single market).
- It is necessary to make the "reinforced cooperation" possible. If they become easier, "we see if there are candidates". "it is better to have reinforced cooperation in broad day light than clubs of four or five countries that decide and then get everything approved by a half sleeping Council".
- The Charter of fundamental rights must not "left aside" or be "postponed". According to the present draft, it is a text that "represents the Europeans desire to live together": it is necessary to "make the Charter live, and I would see every national Parliament discuss this text", added Mr Delors. Should economic and social rights be enshrined in the Charter? I would include the right to strike and trade union rights, but "would not include" a European minimum income in the text, said Delors in answer to the President of the Socialist Group, Mr. Baron, and British Conservative Lord Stockton.
- The debate on the future. Jacques Delors turned to, in particular:
- The European Constitution, on which he does not agree with most of the MEPs who questioned him. "I shall spare you a flirt with the idea of a European Constitution (…) I do not want to parade with those who parade for the Constitution without believing in it", said Mr. Delors, for whom "a good Treaty has more worth than a treaty baptised a Constitution". You tell us that Europe needs simplifying: "how is it you cant's see that the Constitution would provide the means?" asked French Socialist, Mr. Duhamel, pleading: "Do not abandon us in this battle". To Mr. Napolitano who questioned him on the "reorganiation of the treaties" (hoping that in Nice the decision would be taken to tackle this question at a later date), Delors said: "if you are speaking about a treaty that opens with a declaration on the "will to live together", with a "hard part" that can only be changed through unanimity, and a "more flexible part, then I agree". Italian Green Ms. Frassoni stressed that a Constitution had one special advantage, that of "not simply being the product of States", whereas it was also the method used, the intergovernmental method, that complicated the revision of the Treaty. (Ms. Frassoni, moreover, remarked in passing that many Italian MEPs had a dual mandate, and that "we never see them here").
- The creation of a "Federation of Nation-States" within the future Union enlarged to 30 or 35, to reconcile enlargement and deepening. Mr. Lamassoure (French, EPP) expressed some "serious" objections to that idea, including an objection of a "tactical" nature, vis-à-vis countries negotiating their membership of the European Union. The question to ask, Delors replied, is as follows: "If we choose a single Europe after enlargement, will we be able to achieve your ambitions, Mr. Lamassoure? Were it possible, I would not bother creating a vanguard". Austrian Green, Mr. Voggenhuber, expressed doubts regarding an exercise in which a small group of countries would determine "not only the speed, but also the direction" of the whole. I propose trying "an experimental phase", said Delors, noting that "that has not to occur immediately", and adding: "This can occur after three-four years of experience with enhanced cooperation", to see "its limits". As for the institutions of the Federation of Nation-States, he repeated that, according to him, there should be a single Commission and a "common Court of Justice" for the Federation and for the greater whole of the future enlarged European Union, whereas there would need to be "a special Council of ministers and a special Parliamentary formation" for the Federation. At the same time, Delors considers that thought "should already be given to the purpose of a Europe among 30" with less grand ambitions than the Federation, but that would nevertheless be a very ambitious project, especially if it was decided to "provide it with a geo-political objective". As to method, Delors exclaimed: "Monnet, Schuman, Adenauer and De Gasperi must not become museum pieces, with Santer and myself as guardians of the museum"; it must be acknowledged that the method remains valid, but that "it cannot do everything". "We need prophets, people ahead of their times" in European construction, he also said, citing Altiero Spineli and his Draft Treaty on the Union (1984).
- Subsidiarity. It is "crucial" that the definition of Constitution, federalism, and well as subsidiary, be clarified, said Mr. Delors. He considers that within tomorrow's European policies there will be "one part for the Community method and one part for the intergovernmental method". According to him, "when the EU manifests itself at diplomatic level, defence and human rights, it is in its interests to have all the assets at its disposal in hand", which is not the case now, "as we wanted to marginalise the Commission". Delors also spoke in favour of subsidiarity for certain social issues on which progress cannot be made in any other way: "I am a supporter of the 'open method of coordination' of Portuguese Prime Minister Guterres", he said (the method of the Lisbon Summit last February: Ed.). To Ms. Schleicher (CSU member) who asked him if he was in favour of clearer separation of competencies, Delors answered that yes, that there was "a time when one has to stop".
Mr. Delors also spoke of the EU's enlargement, proposing that: a) In Nice, no date be set for membership, but a date at which negotiations with the most advanced applicant countries be completed, as they must not fear "being placed in the same boat"; b) to show that applicant countries are "members of the same family", that the European Conference be "perpetuated", meeting, for example, six times a year, to speak of internal and external security. "I am sure that, if we had done so before, these countries would have greatly helped us in understanding the problems of the Balkans", or the issues of minorities, certain problems of immigration and relations with Russia, said Mr. Delors. Mr. Verheugen is "the man who has provided me with the clearest and most comprehensive analysis of enlargement, he is a Commissioner who sees clearly, without too much pessimism or naïvety ", he stated in answer to questions (notably from British Conservative, Mr. Beazley).
