Nice, 11/12/2000 (Agence Europe) - This conference was long and arduous, but "I said you'll see, this summit will remain in the history of Europe as a great summit by the scale and complexity of the problems solved", said President Chirac at 5.00 am on Monday 11 December, at his press conference at the end of the Summit of Nice that, half an hour before, had ended negotiations on the EU's institutional reform. The Treaty of Nice is thus born, under the reservation of the texts having the final touches put to them. Chirac briefly recalled that the issues dealt with in Nice before beginning the debate on institutional reform (including the declaration on the distinctive nature of sport, recalling that it had had to be "debated at length, faced with certain partners that do not have the same culture as us"), and he explained the difficulties surrounding institutional negotiations by the fact that they affected "the most delicate of issues, things that hurt" on which each Member State had been at times "cautious, aggressive even", finally to arrive at a "decent outcome, more than decent even, a good outcome". In particular Mr. Chirac mentioned:
As for French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, he told the press that he was "happy for Europe, happy for France", which, thanks to the help of all and with the European Commission, had managed to conclude a "balanced package". Mr. Jospin made a point of "praising the efforts of Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Verhofstadt, who, at the last moment, allowed an agreement among fourteen to become a complete agreement" (see further). I would have preferred us to have been more ambitious, especially on qualified majority voting, said the Prime Minister, for whom this reform was possibly undertaken without sufficient "ambition or rigour". In addition, Mr. Jospin spoke cautiously about the "post-Nice" process, considering that "it will not be an institutional debate very quickly": "we shall have to be realistic and cautious in our forecasts of what we shall be able to achieve in this exercise", he said.
At the same press conference, the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi also acknowledged that the Commission had had "particularly high ambitions" for this IGC, "certainly more so than the Heads of State or Government". Mr. Banier and myself acted as the interpreters of the "strong demands" of the European Parliament, he said, considering that the ratification of the Treaty would certainly be no easy process, and that "a lot will depend on the stance the European Parliament will take". Prodi thus expressed "some regret" and a "certain amount of disappointment as more had not been done: but, he added that the conditions were now there to enable the Union's enlargement to progress, even faster than planned. "The are no Nice leftovers", and the declaration adopted on "post-Nice" demonstrates that European integration remains "lively and strong", Prodi stressed; the Commission "will fully exploit the instrument" of enhanced cooperation, easier to implement than hitherto. As for the extension of qualified majority voting, he welcomed the decisions taken for trade policy: thus, he said, the Commission will be able to negotiate for effectively at international level.
…/..
On the other hand, he deplored the existence of "insurmountable vetoes that have not even allowed to have a discussion" on qualified majority voting in the other key sectors (allusion to the British refusal over taxation and social). To the question of knowing if the weighting of votes decided in Nice was easy to explain to citizens, Mr Prodi replied without ambiguity: "no, its complicated, for this reason we have proposed double majority". The system will function, but "I regret that it is not understandable", he added.
When answering questions, Mr Chirac hoped in particular that the Nice Treaty be ratified as quickly as possible, "in the next eighteen months" even if it cannot "guarantee anything". Questioned over the decoupling by Belgium compared to the Netherlands in terms of votes in the Council, when there is no decoupling between France and Germany, Mr Chirac asserted once more that, as soon as the Franco-German reconciliation had been decided, it had been evident that it would occur "on a strictly equal footing, between two equal peoples in all ways and which intended to find each other". To the question of knowing why Malta, when it has nearly the same population as Luxembourg, sees itself allocated fewer votes and fewer MEPs, Mr Chirac answered by recalling that "traditionally, the countries that have the longest history benefit from an advantage", as "they have greatly contributed to the European building process": this decision "does not change a great deal for Malta", he added. Mr Chirac also commented on the unfolding of the Nice Summit feeling that "it will require changing the methods", as it " is not normal to finish at five in the morning": it is for this reason that I tried the previous day not to have a night session of the European Council, he added.
Negotiations covered weighting of votes and differentiation introduced between Belgium and Netherlands
We expected difficulties over the "decoupling" between the votes of Germany and France in the EU Council; it is the differentiation in votes between the Netherlands and Belgium (as well as the displeasure of the other medium sized countries, and in particular Portugal, in the face of proposals by the French Presidency over the weighting of votes in the Council) that lead to an extension of the works until four thirty in the morning on Monday. On Sunday night, after a new drive by a number of small and medium countries for the idea to introduced simple double majority to the Council (formula favoured by the European Commission and the European Parliament), the Presidency would present a new proposal that was acceptable for Portugal - whose votes were increased, compared to the previous proposal, from 11 to 12, while those of Spain were lowered from 28 to 27 - but not for Belgium - which saw itself allocated, it too, 12 votes instead of 11, but still less than the Netherlands, with their 13 votes. Belgium initially refused this proposal, but finally accepted it, following in particular the offer of an adjustment, after enlargement, of the number of MEPs that would be increased from 20 to 22 compared to the first proposal made in Nice by the Presidency (EUROPE will return to this aspect, which includes, after enlargement, an exceeding of the ceiling of 700 MEPs already written in the present Treaty). A justification of this adjustment was, among others, the specific structure of Belgium, bilingual country where for each Francophone party there is a corresponding Dutch speaking party. Portugal and Greece, which would have been "decoupled" from Belgium, also obtained an increase in the number of their MEPs to 22.
Finally the weighting of votes decided in Nice foresees: 29 votes for Germany, United Kingdom, France and Italy, 27 for Spain and Poland, 14 for Romania, 13 for the Netherlands, 12 for Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Hungary and the Czech Republic, 10 for Sweden, Austria and Bulgaria, 7 for Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Slovakia and also Lithuania, 4 for Luxembourg, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia and Cyprus, 3 for Malta. Furthermore, a declaration indicates in particular that, by 2003, the blocking minority will increase from 89 to 91 votes.
Previously, several small and medium countries (in the front line Belgium, Portugal, Finland and Austria) had, displeased with the proposal presented in the morning by the Presidency, asserted that the solution of double majority - of States and populations - was the best. However, the Presidency had tabled its proposal according to which Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy would have 30 votes instead of the present 10, Spain 28 instead of 8 (and also Poland with 28), Romania 13, the Netherlands 12 instead of 5, Belgium, Greece and Portugal 11 instead of 5 (and also Hungary 11), Sweden and Austria 9 instead of 4 (and also Bulgaria with 9), Denmark, Finland and Ireland 7 instead of 3 (and also Slovakia with 7), Lithuania 5, Latvia, Estonia and Slovenia 4, Luxembourg 3 instead of 2 (and also Cyprus and Malta 3).
Sunday evening, the Portuguese Prime Minister, Antonio Guterres, had immediately criticised this proposal, because of the emphasis on the gap between the votes of Spain and Portugal: this proposal is discriminatory, he felt, recalling that, for more than 800 years, Portugal had managed to assert its identity.
"In our opinion, none of the Presidency's proposals, based on its interpretation of European reality as it sees it, correspond to the main balances within the Union. We are not alone in noting this disproportion and it is not by chance that some countries are pleased while others are not pleased at all", the Portuguese Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Francisco Seixas da Costa, told the press (Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar had, however, during the debate on Sunday morning, thanked the Presidency for all the work it had done …). "We are not the ones who asked. It was the largest countries that asked. It was not our idea that they should give up the second Commissioner. They created the problem themselves", he added. The Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, was also harshly critical of the Presidency, telling the press that its proposal on re-weighting of votes and the "decoupling" of the Netherlands from Belgium was "obvious discrimination", and that it was all the more unacceptable for Belgium if no considerable move forward was made on qualified majority vote. "We shall take our reasoning to the very end", he affirmed - even saying that he did not rule out the possibility of leaving the meeting. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt (who, at the end of the summit of the European Liberals and Democrats, had said that Belgium could accept the "decoupling" of the Netherlands if there were also "decoupling" elsewhere), said that the Presidency's proposal was "not logical", since it provided for equality for the big countries but differentiated between the small. The only clear and easy solution to be explained is that of double majority, said Polish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen, and Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel affirmed above all that the demographic net was an "arbitrary" one. The Greek and Luxembourg Prime Ministers, Costas Simitis and Jean-Claude Juncker also criticised the Presidency's proposal. Romano Prodi, Commission President, in his speeches on this tricky issue, constantly reminded the Heads of State and Government of the need to fully take into account the interests of applicant countries.
After a brief interruption, President Chirac announced the modification to his proposal in order to allow Luxembourg (and Cyprus) 4 votes instead of 3. That was the only change. Portugal and Belgium replied that this was unacceptable and the issue was momentarily put to one side.
Qualified majority: Summit accepts Finnish proposal on trade policy - Spain pleased with agreement
on cohesion (regional funding)
On the whole, in the discussion on institutional reform, there was more discussion over figures (that some countries called questions of "power") than on progress regarding qualified majority voting (the questions these countries call "structuring" issues), deemed indispensable for successful enlargement. In this last chapter, the results were considered as rather weak. The Heads of State and Government decided to apply qualified majority in Article 133 to "the negotiation and to the conclusion of agreements relating to trade in services and commercial aspects of intellectual property", but with the exception, for taking France's position into account, of agreements "relating to trade in cultural and audiovisual services, educational services and social and human health services", which continue to come under the power shared between the Commission and the Member States, except for the conclusion of international agreements in the field of transport. The Heads of State and Government accepted (after a rather difficult discussion) the proposal presented by Finland, which more clearly indicates the cases where the rule of unanimity is upheld, namely when an agreement relates to a field "in which the Community has not yet exercised the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty by adopting internal rules" and when there is a horizontal agreement on one of the areas in which the Community has not exercised powers or insofar as it is also covered by the exceptions given above. The text finally adopted also stresses that these provisions must not be detrimental to the right of Member States to maintain and conclude agreements with third countries or organisations insofar as these agreements respect Community law and other relevant international agreements.
Regarding the more difficult subjects for which transition to qualified majority vote was suggested, the Council managed to reach an agreement, mainly on: a) Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds (Article 161), but, here also, in very restrictive conditions: application of qualified majority vote as of 1 January 2007 with, in addition, the guarantee requested by Spain that, if there is no agreement on the new financial perspectives at this date, the application of qualified majority vote would be postponed; b) Article 137 on social provisions, here also only in the future: unanimous decision of the Council before transition to qualified majority (with codecision); - Article 63 on asylum, after the Council has unanimously adopted Community legislation governing this matter, and Article 62 on conditions of free movement of third country nationals, from 1 May 2004.
On the other hand, no progress was possible over the sensitive dossier of taxation, notably because of the total refusal by the United Kingdom and some other countries among which was Ireland (even if, there to, the formulation was very prudent and restrictive) and on social security (there too, there was in particular the categorical refusal by the United Kingdom). These documents thus remain under unanimity.
For Belgian Prime Minister, core is that together three Benelux countries have same weight
as any of "large countries"
The Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt appeared satisfied when leaving the negotiations, in which he said he fought had, even if he deplored the lack of progress achieved over the transition from unanimity to qualified majority. "Europe only has a future in a Community project", he announced during a press conference, adding that his aim "was to reach an agreement that makes Europe more efficient and more democratic". He explained that his strategy in the debate over the weighting of votes within the Council was to ensure that the Benelux have the same institutional weight as the large countries, considering it "unacceptable to change to basic philosophy that wants for these three countries to play a significant role in the European building process". The solution adopted for the size of the Commission appeared to him as "the best", to the extent that "it enables the new Member States to adapt to the European structures". With regards to qualified majority, he felt that "the presence of Belgium enabled to gain advances in the list of forty adopted provisions". He mentioned the Belgian and Luxembourg proposal for the selection by qualified majority of the Commission President, as well as the abandonment of the proposal together 9/10ths of States to start a new procedure under Article 7. He welcomed the adoption of the rule for enhanced cooperation to "eight States" without a possible resorting to the veto. He added that he would have been more flexible in this area if more concessions had been made in the field of qualified majority. Furthermore, he announced the preparation of a declaration under the Belgian Presidency in December 2001, which will set the framework and the method of the future IGC planned for 2004. According to him, it will be responsible "for completing the structure of Europe". He added that the issues of this reform are not limited, to the extent that the cases foreseen in the text adopted in Nice are introduced with the note "among others". Either way the role of the national parliaments and the balance between the institutions are mentioned.
The Belgian Prime Minister confirmed that the French Presidency proposed, during a bilateral exchange of views, that the next European Summit take place in Brussels. He denied that "this offer weighed on the balance to rally his country to the final compromise". Louis Michel, Minister for Foreign Affairs, indicated that this proposal - made orally - is maintained and that Belgium did not refuse it.
Jean-Claude Juncker: "Europe is united but fragile and complicated"
A good result, but not excellent. Resigned, the Luxembourg Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker defended, Monday morning, the EU 15 agreement. "The core is done to the extent that the European Union can in calm and order consider enlargement (..) The foundations of the EU have not been fuddled, but return to a solid foundations, more solid", he told the press. Over the extension of qualified majority votes in the Council, he casts an indulgent eye: "I would not say that the global agreement is thin (…) From conference to conference, from IGC to IGC, from Treaty to Treaty, there is progress which, without being impressive, is measurable. I like to compare this agreement with our inability to do so in Maastricht and Amsterdam".
"Rarely did I have such a strong impression that Europe remains a fragile enterprise and that continent hides complexities that we do not suspect", however admitted Mr Juncker: "the candidate countries are not surprised that a complicated continent does not always have the simple answer, which can explain why it takes time".
Jose Maria Aznar: "Europe progresses, Spain progresses"
The Spanish Prime Minister expressed his "intense satisfaction" to notably see the relative weight of Spain strengthened in the European Union. "It is a major agreement, which lead to a better balance (between member countries)", he told the press: "the position of Spain will be better in the future and, in a Europe of 27, it will find the position it had during its accession to the European Community". Spain is the country "that has progressed the most", continued the Minister, referring to the increase in its votes in the Council, proportionally higher than for all the other Member States (its votes are multiplied by 3.37 while they will be by 2.9 for the four other large countries and, at best, by 2.4 for the smaller ones). Another issue for satisfaction for Spain is the solution adopted for the Cohesion funds, which correspond exactly to what had been proposed in Madrid. In total, we have reached a "reasonable balance", noted Mr Aznar, when considering that not counting this, the Summit had been the most "difficult" he had ever known.
Antonio Guterres: "Nice is a good Treaty even if it is not the best"
Long a member of the last reticent towards an agreement, the Portuguese Prime Ministers felt, following the Summit, that a "frankly reasonable" balance between the States of different sizes was finally reached. "Europe has provided itself with a more effective decision-making mechanism (…) This system is not the most perfect, but it guarantees equity between the Member States", he told the press. "We would have preferred a system of double majority - majority of States and majority of population"-, but "the system agreed upon, reflects these two parts" and the level of 62% is "fair", he explained, "even if it is true that it will not simplify decision making".
Danish satisfaction, mitigated Finnish feelings
Satisfied with a Treaty which, in his opinion, "prepares enlargement", the Danish Prime Minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, notably welcomed the more favourable fate finally reserved for Poland in the allocation of votes in the Council. His Finnish counterpart, Pavo Lipponen showed greater reservations: "We will have to redo this Treaty in the future", he notably felt, when raising the difficulties to come in the decision-making with qualified majority (…) Guy Verhofstadt is the hero of the evening. He fought as a true European", he asserted.
Satisfaction with some regrets for Chancellor Schröder
The German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said he was "generally satisfied" with the result obtained in Nice, but did not hide a certain deception over the lack of progress in terms of the extension of qualified majority voting. "Germany would have wanted more" in this field, said Mr Schröder to the press. The Chancellor nevertheless spoke of a historic date for the enlargement of the EU towards Central and Eastern Europe. "The fact that we are now prepared to welcome new members is a historic date", he said. More generally, seen the national principals and interests that where at stake in Nice, the Nice result is acceptable for Germany. "We have managed to do what was possible to do", said the Chancellor.
Tony Blair is happy to have maintained right to veto over taxation
The British Prime Minister Tony Blair, pleased with the agreement, notably underlined before the press his satisfaction of having defended the principal of unanimity over matters of taxation and social security. "We have maintained of right to veto over taxation and social security. We have renounced nothing to which we did not want to renounce", said Mr Blair. The British Prime Minister also underlined the result in Nice with regards to the allocation of votes in the Council. Here too, the interests of the United Kingdom was right, as the position of the large countries has been strengthened, he said. "The result from Nice is satisfactory as it prepares the way towards enlargement", felt Mr Blair.