Nice, 10/12/2000 (Agence Europe) - The final phase of the negotiation on EU institutional reform, in the Nice European Council, has lasted more than the two days foreseen - Sunday in the afternoon the EU 15 Heads of State and Government and the European Commission were in the process of discussing another proposal on the weighting of votes in the Council, the theme that has occupied a significant part of their works and which provoked, after the first break off between the "small" countries in Biarritz, a new conflict between large and small Member States (while several observers expected a break off by Germany, in terms of votes in the Council, compared to the other large countries).
Sunday morning, the French Presidency had presented a proposal maintaining the differentiation between the four large countries and Spain, but including a break off by the Netherlands compared to Belgium and increasing the votes of the small and medium, compared to the formula which, on the eve, had provoked the fury of the latter (see below). As of eleven o'clock on the table was a new proposal, Belgian this time, based upon a simple criteria, by groups of countries according to population. Thus the countries with a population of 70 to 80 million inhabitants (Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain and Poland) would have 30 votes, those with a population of 8 to 22 million (Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria) would have 12, those with a population of 4 to 8 million (Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Slovakia and Lithuania) would have 8 and the countries with less that 4 million inhabitants (Luxembourg, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta) would have 4. According to this formula, the qualified majority would be 259 votes (71.2%) and the blocking minority of 106, while a "demographic safety net" of 62% would be foreseen (Germany wanted this to be raised). According to the calculations made by the negotiators, this weighting enables three large countries to form a blocking minority only if Germany is among them.
It is only in the afternoon that the negotiators would examine the draft Nice Treaty, Article by Article, by broaching all the issue concerning qualified majority (over which the Presidency had made two proposals: see below) and the "post Nice".
In the night of Saturday to Sunday, the Presidency had proposed a draft "Declaration on the future of the EU" asserting in particular that the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies, in cooperation with the Commission and with the participation of the European Council, "encourage a wide debate associating all the interested parties", and that the Brussels/Laeken summit, in December 2001, would adopt a declaration announcing initiatives to "continue this process", covering: a) a more precise demarcation of competence, b) the statute of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, c) the simplification of the treaties, d) the role of the national parliaments in European architecture. According to this declaration to be annexed to the Treaty, a new "Conference of Member States will be called in 2004 "to discuss these points, "in view of bringing corresponding changes to the treaties".
The MEPs Elmar Brok and Dimitris Tsatsos, EP representatives to the IGC preparatory group, told the press (while the negotiations are not finished) that they doubt that the Parliament - which will hear Jacques Chirac next week in Strasbourg - may be content with such a sedate treaty (see page 4).
Weighting of votes in Council: First proposal by Presidency greeted by near unanimous
opposition - Mr Prodi: a serious problem for candidate countries
After the Thursday evening "confessional" (that had lasted for each of them between a quarter of an hour and half an hour and for which some delegations challenged the utility), the French Presidency had presented, on Saturday morning, a first proposal that in particular envisaged, for the weighting of votes in the Council: 30 votes for Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, 28 for Spain (26 for Poland, 12 for Romania), 10 for the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium and Portugal (also 10 for the Czech Republic and Hungary), 8 for Sweden and Austria (also 8 for Bulgaria), 6 for Denmark, Finland, Ireland (also 6 for Slovakia and Lithuania, 6 Latvia, Slovenia and Estonia(, 3 for Luxembourg (also 3 for Cyprus and Malta). The proposal, during the first round table, had been immediately challenged by most of the delegations, and the Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres asserted that this was a "institutional coup d'Etat" and a directorate of large States (while the United Kingdom and Spain were among those satisfied, and that Germany did not call for the "breaking off" of the other large countries). This Presidency document, its "another vision of the European Union, it is an arbitrary and subjective proposal", stated the Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel. The range of votes from 3 to 30 is too great, felt the Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker. This paper is disappointing and over some points unacceptable, exclaimed the Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok, who added: we are treated like the poor parents, I do not want to be aligned with Romania. For the Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis, the blocking minority should not be greater. The double majority is the only possibility, according to Belgium, felt the Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, for whom the Nice result will firstly judged over the extension of qualified majority voting. Goran Persson spoke, him too, for double majority, and the German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder also admitted is preference for this system. Another warning bell came from the Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Anzar, who reaffirmed that it is an enormous sacrifice to renounce the second Commissioner, and that such a sacrifice is only possible if the weighting of votes is substantial.
The Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs Jamie Gama announced from the start of the afternoon a counter proposal, in order to rebalance that of the Presidency: we are prepared to take into account certain concerns of the large countries, but the small must not be "humiliated and confiscated", he stated. The Portuguese proposal - which only relates to the Europe of 15 - maintains open the option of a "break off" of Germany and the Netherlands. The proposal foreseeing, compared to that of the Presidency: - Greece, Belgium and Portugal: 12 votes; - Sweden: 11 votes, which would have meant a break off by Austria, which would have got 10 votes; - Denmark, Finland and Ireland: 7 Votes; - Luxembourg: 4 or 5 votes.
The European Commissioner Michel Barnier said, on Saturday before the press, that President Prodi had noted that "the Presidency's paper present serious problems", as the votes foreseen for the candidate countries were "generally underestimated". In addition the Danish Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rassmussen spoke out saying: this weighting does not reflect in any way the "logic of enlargement".
As for the Dutch Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Dick Benschop, he told the press that the Netherlands does not understand that such criteria had been applied by the Presidency, and that Jacques Chirac was unable to explain them: on the other hand, he found a merit in this proposal, that of not longer allowing (as is the case in the Italian proposal present a few months ago in the IGC) for three large Member States to be enough to form a blocking minority.
On Saturday evening, another counterproposal was presented, that of Finland, which foresaw: 29 votes to Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy; - 27 votes for Spain and Poland; - 15 for Romania; - 14 for the Netherlands; - 12 for Greece, Belgium, Portugal and the Czech Republic and Hungary; - 11 for Sweden, Austria and Bulgaria; - 8 for Denmark, Finland and Slovakia; - 7 for Ireland and Lithuania; - 5 for Latvia, Estonia and Slovenia; - 4 for Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta. According to this proposal, the blocking minority would by 104 votes (while the first formula by the Presidency would have had 91 votes).
Objections to date for capping members of European Commission have upper hand
In its first proposal, the Presidency indicated that, during the first phase, the Commission would be formed of one national from each Member State, while as of 2010 or as soon as the EU has 27 members, there would be 20 Commissioners, with an egalitarian rotation. In its second proposal presented at 17pm, the indication of the date had vanished, as well as the figure of 20, replaced by the indication "the final number of Commissioner members" should "either way" be below 27. Furthermore, this second proposal included a draft Article 27 of the Treaty on the organisation of the Commission and the strengthening of its President's powers, foreseeing in particular that that latter can shuffle the Commissioner portfolios during the mandate, that he name "Vice-Presidents" (in an undefined number instead of the present two) and that, "after approval by the college", he may ask a Commissioner to resign.
Michel Barnier indicated to the press that, personally, he preferred that a decision on the differentiated ceiling be take already in Nice rather than after, while several Member States confirmed that according to them it would best to wait for the end of the present enlargement process before considering a reduction in the number of Commissioners.
Only a minority of countries do not see problems with extension of
qualified majority as proposed by Commission
In the two first document on the transition from unanimity to qualified majority, the French Presidency limited itself to making suggestions on the most delicate themes. Very few countries - Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark - had none or nearly no difficulty with renouncing unanimity, while the others confirmed their well known reticence. In particular, Tony Blair asserted that over taxation and social the position of London is firmly set. Commissioner Michel Barnier once more insisted before the press over the importance of maintaining the Community "spirit" and the method - which means, he said, "more qualified majority and more codecision". The proposals by the Presidency cover:
(1) respect for fundamental rights (revision of Article 7): The Presidency maintained the proposal according to which the Council, ruling through qualified majority expressing the favourable votes of four fifths of its members after assent from the European Parliament, can note that there exists a clear risk of serious violation by a Member States of the principals outlined in Article 6, and to address the appropriate recommendations to it;
(2) transition to qualified majority (in some cases, the Presidency text talks of "codecision", codecision that the Parliament calls for as a corollary to qualified majority, but that some countries refuse to automatically grant it). The proposals covers the most contested points, namely:
(a) social policy. Two proposals where made: - for the coordination of social security systems (Article 42): coordination measures necessary for the free movement of persons would be taken by qualified majority, by the extension of the scope of application of Community regulation in this matter (in terms of provision and beneficiaries) will be decided by unanimity; - for the minimal requirements in a certain number of social fields (Article 137), the transition to qualified majority being notably proposed for the information and consultation of workers, the improvement of working conditions, equality between men and women, the modernisation of social protection systems, the fight against social exclusion. On the other hand unanimity will be maintained for social security and the social protecting of workers, the protection of workers in case of the termination of work contracts, employment conditions for third country nations frequently spending time on EU territory and - addition introduced into the text presented in the afternoon - the collection representation and defence of workers. This last aspect enabled Denmark to lift its objection to this Article, which was the only one - apart for that on the statute of MEPs that is not part of this negotiation - or the abandonment of unanimity posing problems for Danes.
(b) Visas, asylum and immigration: the Presidency is proposing in particular a declaration indicating that there will be an automatic transition to codecision (thus, qualified majority) on 1 May 2004 for the monitoring of external borders, the free movement of third country nationals, illegal immigration and stays of third country nationals on the other Member States (Articles 62 and 63). In its second proposal, the Presidency introduced, in order to take into account the concerns felt by Germany (for which qualified majority would only be envisaged when the EU has a common policy in this field) a passage foreseeing a modification of Article 67 to foresee that the "Council rules in codecision for issues relating to asylum as soon as a Community legislation, unanimously adopted, will have defined the common rules and crucial principals that will govern this matter".
Before the press, Michel Barnier indicated that President Prodi had expressed before the Heads of State and Government his "concern for the level" of these Articles, as, to implement the conclusions of the European Council in Tampere, it would require being "more ambitious and realist". According to him, a decision now on the differentiated transition to qualified majority is not a bad thing, as it would give the customs, justice and police administrations time to "put themselves into the spirit of working together, knowing that this will happen".
(c) taxation: The Presidency is proposing that decision taken by unanimity to transfer certain aspects of indirect taxation and that of companies (Article 93) to qualified majority after a period of 5 years, on the basis of a report by a "taxation Committee" (even this prudent text causes a "no no no" from the British Ministers for European Affairs Keith Vaz). In the draft presented Saturday afternoon, the Presidency separated from its proposal on taxation a passage - that it reintroduced under the heading "customs and financial cooperation" - foreseeing that codecision apply to measures (Article 135) aiming to strengthen the fight against fraud aimed against the public finances of Member States.
(d) trade policy (Article 133): the Presidency initially proposed a protocol setting the list of sectors that pass to qualified majority ( a "positive list", said the French Minister for European Affairs Pierre Moscovici), namely: - commercial aspects of intellectual property; - trade in financial services, telecommunications ("except broadcasting, the exclusion of services providing contents aimed at the public"), related to construction and engineering, relating to tourism and holidays, concerning the environment. The second text asserts that "in the exercising of competence that are attributed to it by the present Article, the Council rules by qualified majority" (it was drafted by taking into account suggestions from the European Commission and Finland, which had presented its own proposal for Article 133); the list disappeared, while in particular there was a paragraph specifying that the Council cannot conclude agreements including provisions that exceed the Community competence. The agreements in the field of "trade in cultural and audiovisual services, education services, as well as social and health services" continue to stem from the competence shared between the Community and the Member States" and as a result the negotiation requires "other than a Community decision taken in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Article 300, the common assent of the Member States". For several countries, including Finland, these proposals where clearly insufficient;
(e) economic and social cohesion (Article 161): the Presidency proposed - which notably takes into account concerns held by Spain, but did not please Chancellor Schröder - codecision as of 1 January 2007. In its second proposal, it crosses out the passage in its first proposal foreseeing, in case the financial forecasts have not been adopted on 1 January 2007, the postponing of this transition to qualified majority until this adoption.
Mr Brok and Mr Tsatsos criticise spirit of negotiation and content of reform - Proposals on allocation
of seats in European Parliament
The two Parliament representatives to the IGC preparatory group gave, on Sunday in Nice, very negative assessments of the unfolding of the negotiations on institutional reform. The new Treaty does not ensure, as it should, both the effectiveness and democratic legitimacy of the EU, felt the Greek Socialist Dimitris Tsatsos, for whom the "political message" from this negotiation, is that the larger States have fought "for their own power": I fear that "the harmony between large and small that was a "basis for the life" of the EU is compromised, he said. I dare not anticipate what the Parliament will say, he added.
As for the Christian Democrat Elmar Brok, he criticised in particular: a) the threshold of qualified majority and the "demographic net" of 62%, which to him seems too high and susceptible of complicating the decision-making process; b) the exceeding of the ceiling of 700 MEPs: the Presidency proposal would in fact lead to 738 MEPs: 99 for Germany (as is presently the case), 74 for the United Kingdom, France and Italy (87 presently), 52 for Spain (64) and Poland, 35 for Romania, 25 for the Netherlands (31), 20 for Greece, Belgium and Portugal (25) and for the Czech Republic and Hungary, 18 for Sweden (22), 17 for Austria (21) and Bulgaria, 13 for Denmark and Finland (16) and Slovakia, 12 for Ireland (15) and Lithuania, 8 for Latvia, 7 for Slovenia, 6 for Luxembourg (as now) for Estonia, Cyprus, 5 for Malta; c) - proposal on taxation: "it is zero"; d) asylum: the reference to the need to have a general framework before voting by qualified majority is a step back compared to Amsterdam; e) - trade: the French have "taken on board the Commission proposal and have destroyed it" by inserting a phrase on unanimity for issues of a "horizontal nature" for which unanimity is required; f) - cohesion: unanimity until 2007 means that not only Spain, but also the new members, will have the right to vote on the programming of structural funds until 2014, and, as we know "who has to pay", I can assure you that this will be a "major debate in Germany", and that Chancellor Schröder should not accept it.
See following pages for Texts relating to Summit results concerning issues other that institutional reform.
| EUROPEAN COUNCIL OF NICE (7, 8 & 9 DECEMBER) |