Brussels, 23/11/2000 (Agence Europe) - Portuguese Secretary of State for European Affairs Francisco Seixas da Costa, member of the preparatory group for the Intergovernmental Conference on EU institutional reform, affirmed this week before the European Parliament constitutional committee that he did not regret having somewhat over-dramatised, at the IGC, the contrast between "large" and "small" Member States, as this had made it possible to bring out the true problems raised in this negotiation (he used in this respect the distinction between "structuring" issues and questions of "power"). Mr Seixas da Costa, who said that Portugal would be in favour of integrating the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty and of using the "Convention" formula for reforms to be envisaged in the "post-Nice" period, mainly spoke of:
- Vote weighting in Council, saying that, even if "double majority" is not brought in, it will still be necessary for qualified majority in Council to reflect a majority of Member States and at the same time a majority of population. The Amsterdam Protocol said that the loss of a Commissioner on the part of the most populated States would be offset by vote re-weighting or the introduction of double majority, but not by both at the same time, he remarked.
- The composition and the role of the European Commission. It was on this that Francisco Seixas was in the most fighting spirit. Thus, to those who state that a ceiling should be put on the number of Commissioners for strengthening the Commission and who recall that the Commissioners do not represent national interests, he asked: Why then, have the largest countries been offered re-weighting of votes in Council to offset the loss of the second Commissioner - when votes are the expression of the relative weight of Member States? This, he said, means that the second Commissioner represents a certain form of power, of "power and influence". (Why, he also asked, do the smallest Member States have less directors-general at the Commission than the large?) According to Mr Seixas da Costa, the eventual ceiling on Commission numbers is a question that could be tackled in the future, when necessary.
- Extension of qualified majority vote, recognising that Portugal has difficulties on around 13 of the issues for which, according to the Presidency, it would be necessary to give up unanimity. Qualified majority vote should be extended, but the "crossed veto" makes this a very difficult exercice, he recalled. Mr Seixas da Costa said, in principle, that he was in favour of applying codecision when decisions are taken by qualified majority vote, but on a case by case basis, and not automatically. In his view, moreover, qualified majority that goes hand in hand with codecision with the EP would in itself be a sort of reweighting in favour of the large Member States, which have more MEPs.
- Enhanced cooperation, stressing that Lisbon, which is in favour of relaxing conditions for starting up such cooperation (but does not want enhanced cooperation in areas affecting the internal market and cohesion), insists on the role that should be played by the Commission. In particular, the Commission should be able to put a brake on enhanced cooperation if it notes that it runs counter to the Union's general interest, and this opposition could only be overcome by the Council enacting by unanimity. A minimum of 8 member States is needed to organised enhanced cooperation, in foreign and security policy matters also, said Mr Seixas da Costa, remarking that some propose that, in CFSP, enhanced cooperation is already possible with two or three members. What lies behind this idea? It should be explained to us, he asked. (We cannot accept that two or three Member States represent the Union at international level, said Mr Seixas da Costa).