Brussels, 22/11/2000 (Agence Europe) - Speaking before the EP's Committee on Constitutional Affairs Tuesday evening, Austria's Permanent Representative to the EU, Gregor Woschnagg, member of the IGC Preparatory Group, told them: "we want a Treaty in Nice", and the Nice Summit must also be the trigger for a broad and open discussion on the reform process that should, I personally believe, involve a vaster circle of participants, including the European Parliament, national parliaments and the new Member States. Citing the formula of the Convention used to draw up the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Ambassador Woschnagg said: "the fact that, as long as Article 48 has not been not amended, changes to the Treaty must receive the formal benediction of an Intergovernmental Conference, must not prevent us from seeking other paths for the political process leading to a future IGC. Mr. Woschnagg recalled that Austria had already tried two years ago, with its proposal of a "Parnership for Europe" (made by the then Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schuessel at the Gymnich-type meeting in Salzburg in September 1998), "to open a discussion on the Union's future shape", "even under another aspect".
As for the main topics under discussion in the IGC, he remarked in particular:
- extension of qualified majority voting. Of the 44 provisions for which, according to the latest paper from the Presidency, one could renounce unanimity, Austria could, "without question", do so for forty or so of them, but it finds certain areas especially delicate: the environment (water, spatial planning, sources of energy) and transport. It could, on the other hand, agree to qualified majority voting for tax and social policy, and may, "as early as Nice, speak of at least partial passage" to qualified majority voting for visas and asylum. For Vienna, qualified majority voting and co-decision must go together, but in certain areas, like EMU, it would have to be decided on a "case by case" basis.
- enhanced cooperation. According to Austria, the minimum number of countries required to trigger such cooperation must be the same in the three pillars, and could be as few as 8 Member States.
- European Commission. It is not politically realistic to believe that the small countries are ready renounce having a Commissioner. As the Commission is at times obliged to take "unfortunate decisions for certain Member States", it is important to have one's own who has personal knowledge of national sensitivities, who can set them out before the College and can then explain the decision to their country. In addition, any weakening of the Commission "automatically leads to a strengthening of the already perceptible tendency towards intergovernmentalism", and placing a ceiling on it would mean weakening it politically, said Woschnagg, adding, regarding the option now presented of a "differed ceiling" on the Commission: "I must tell you quite frankly that we are not prepared to negotiate such an option. We could always do so when the need arises".
- weighting of votes. Austria can envisage both a re-weighting of votes and a double majority, but prefers the Swedish model of the "square root". (The "Swedish model" is a variation based on a "moderate" re-weighting, calculated in such a way that any qualified majority comprises a percentage of the population of the EU close to the current percentage, or 57.2% instead of 58%, whereas the two other variations selected provide for: a "weak" re-weighting, together with a demographic net, so that any qualified majority comprises at least 58% of the EU population, like now; - a "substantial" re-weighting (Italian model), by which any qualified majority would comprise 61.27% of the EU population: Ed.). What is important, is that the current balance is not placed back into question, said Mr. Woschnagg, even though he does not really like to speak of a "large versus small" front.
- revision of Article 7. Talks are moving "in the right direction", but Austria would like to include additional elements: role of the Court of Justice, Parliament's opinion, decision-taking through unanimity (obviously without the vote o the country concerned).
- Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter's proclamation can only be a first step before its inclusion in the Treaty (and accession of the EU, as such, to the European Convention on Human Rights); an intermediary solution would be a reference to the Charter in Article 6 of the Treaty, but some Member States "have fundamental problems with this and cannot even agree to a compromise", Ambassador Woschnagg observed.
We shall be returning tomorrow to the (very spirited) address to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the Portuguese representative in he IGC Preparatory Group, the Minister for European Affairs, Francisco Seixas da Costa.
