Risk of too much. After the years of silence on the aims of Europe, barely interrupted, once in a while, by a few isolated voices, we now risk having too much: a merger of stances. Each seems to have its recipe. It is not always easy to distinguish what brings something and what mainly answers a trend. The speech by Romano Prodi in Strasbourg is important because, in its last part, he outlines the procedure to be implemented by 2004 (see N°227 of our EUROPE/Documents series); the speech by the Commission responsible for institutional issues, Michel Barnier, includes "personal ideas" that indicate interesting avenues (see our bulletin of 20 January, p.3); the statement by the European Policy Centre must be read with care due to the authority of those who signed it (including two European Commissioners and an associate of Jean Monnet, see our bulletin of 19 January, p.6); the most recent stance taken by Chancellor Schröder is fundamental as it seems to brush aside the doubts and concerns on the attitude of the new German political class (see this section in yesterday's EUROPE). During this weekend, Mr Moscovici avoided theological battles by rather supporting concrete institutional measures: the Commission President as an "emanation of the elections of the European Parliament", a permanent Council of Ministers specialised in European matters, the possibility of dissolving the European Parliament (see following pages of this bulletin).
An isolated voice. What lacks in these texts is the answer to a crucial question: Europe with 30 can it conserve the aims of the "founding fathers" or its dilution, is it becoming unavoidable? This debate is in part brushed aside to avoid giving an impression of distrust towards the candidate countries, which would appear to be responsible for this dilution. However, each knows that in reality a certain number of countries from Central and Eastern Europe are more in favour of the "Community method" than one or other present Member States, suspected of considering enlargement as an opportunity for freeing the EU of its supranationality and the integration and gently steer it towards intergovernmental cooperation. Romano Prodi asserts (in an interview) that this is his opinion of the United Kingdom's position, while expressing the hope that it is not also Sweden's intention when it places enlargement at the top of its priorities as Presidency of the Council. Either way, we only hear one single voice to loudly denounce the "two Europe": the vanguard and the large Europe. The terminology develops, but the substance remains (see page 5 of this bulletin).
Three points secured. While awaiting the developments - and in particular the stances of the European Parliament and the Prodi Commission- some points seen already secured:
- The "major debate" will not limit itself to the four points cited in the Nice Treaty, that is to say the Charter of fundamental rights, the clarification of competences in accordance with the principal of subsidiarity, the statute of the Charter of fundamental rights, the simplification of the Treaties and the role of the national parliaments. The "Declaration on the future of the Union" raises these points as examples ("among others"), but these four issues are only elements of a wider and deeper thought process, aimed at answering the question: "what do we want for the future of the Union?"
- the major debate will not take place within a standard intergovernmental conference. The IGC as a place for discussion is dead. The methods will be specified in December by the Laeken summit, but it is already decided to the reflection will encompass the Community institutions, the national parliaments and "public opinion as a whole, namely the political, economic and university circles, representatives from civil society etc", and that "the candidate States will be associated to this process." An IGC will only be called as the last necessary phase, which will have to be - Prodi dixit - "short and decision-making";
- There will be no fall in influence and the direct role of the Heads of Government. The functioning of the European Council is far from satisfactory, the Nice Summit provided a clear example. Though the democratic legitimacy of the Heads of Government is indisputable, their "visibility" for public opinion is as much so, and they often prove themselves to be useful for the European project, for example when they set targets and deadlines that the other institutions are then held to respect. It is necessary to avoid the rear guard battles: the Heads of Government are present, and clearly present, and they will not give up their pre-eminent role. The importance is to respect the Community method in the preparation of summits and in particular the full use of its competence by the European Commission. (F.R.)