Brussels/Helsinki, 03/11/2000 (Agence Europe) - As previously indicated, the preparatory group for the Intergovernmental Conference of EU institutional reform chaired by the French Permanent Representative to the EU, Pierre Vimont, is holding the 4 and 5 November in Paris an informal meeting during which the French Presidency will present a summary document on all the issue on the IGC agenda, except those concerning the European Commission and the weighting of votes in the Council (see EUROPE of 1 November, p.4).
On these two issues, the Finnish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kimmo Sasi, told the press this week that a compromise will have to be reached between the number of votes in the Council and the number of Commissioners. He also gave the example of Spain, saying that it will have to "choose between two Commissioners and eight votes or one Commissioner and ten votes", and that it is "clear the price of one Commissioner is two votes".
Progress by Vimont Group over European political parties and reinforced cooperation -
Difficulties over qualified majority voting
The meeting of the preparatory group of last Monday showed a wide consensus on the need to provide itself in the long-term with a European statute for political parties. "There is a significant unease compared to the financing of political parties and a consensus reached to make the operational Treaty, while until now there has not been a legal basis for the establishment of such a statute", explains a European source. The proposals by the European Commission in view of amending the Treaty, on this issue have been favourable welcomed. They enable it, the time come, to present a draft statute for the political parties (rules on their organisation and, especially, their financing), which should then be adopted according to the codecision procedure by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
The Vimont Group, continued its works on the extension of qualified majority voting in the Council, by broaching two of the main sensitive subjects: the measures on asylum and immigration as well as trade policy. On each of these fields, the objections of principal by certain delegations remain (notably on behalf of Germany over asylum and immigration, and by France and Spain over trade policy) for trade policy the Fifteen are looking for reassuring formulations, which consist for example of referring to the fields covered by international agreement on intellectual property rights and services (GATS and TRIPS) rather than by passing by qualified majority for all the parts of trade policy (thus including intellectual property, investment and services). However, some fear that the accumulation of exceptions does not empty the exercise of substance. The European Commission already expressed its fear on this issue (see EUROPE of 1 November, p.3). "What concerns us, is the mixing that could stem from it, which will not make Community policy more coherent. We have already got this problem. With 27 Member States it would be worse", explains on of its representatives.
The debate seems more advanced on reinforced corporation that could be established between some Member States. In particular several delegations favour the reinforced role of the European Commission in their implementation. Thus, according to them, the Member States - at least eight of them - would like to institute between themselves reinforced cooperation in the first pillar should make the request to the European Commission, which could (or not) submit a proposal in this direction to the Council, that would statute through qualified majority, after an opinion from the European Parliament. For CFSP, the request to start reinforced cooperation could come from only from three or four Member States: it should be addressed to the Council, and passed on for opinion to the European Commission and for information to the European Parliament. Adjustments are still called for by some Member States
Two other issues where briefly raised this week by the Vimont Group. The European Commission proposal on the establishment of a European Prosecutor, for the penal protection of Community financial interests, was considered in general to be interesting but premature. Finally, the plan by the Benelux countries and Italy to give anchorage in the Treaties to the development of European defence policy received a mitigated welcome.