Jacques Delors sticks to his guns. The former president of the European Commission remains steadfast in his belief that the European Union enlarged to thirty members cannot have the same aims or ambitions as the Union of the founding fathers, and should have a vanguard with its own institutions. In the last interview we are aware of (granted to the Italian daily La Repubblica on 21 March), he said: "We must decide what it is we want. For example: Is it possible to imagine an enlarged Europe in which all countries respect the Maastricht criteria? No, I find this inconceivable. Italy is proposing enhanced cooperation. It is not so very different from my vanguard proposal, and it is just as well. We must have two institutional frameworks, one for the enlarged Europe, and the other for the vanguard. There should also be a kind of common structure guaranteeing a close link between these two circles".
It is obvious, although Delors did not repeat it on this occasion, that the vanguard could include any of the candidate countries that wish to be part of it and which meet the conditions required, and that a current Member State could remain outside.
The puzzling role of national parliaments. During the meeting on 20 March between the EP and national parliaments, Michel Barnier, the European Commissioner responsible for constitutional affairs together with President Prodi, expressed his views on the current and above all future role of national parliaments in the Community's institutional structure. He essentially said that: a) some of these parliaments are not necessarily "less fervent" than the European Parliament as far as Community construction goes; b) to move forward, Europe now needs "all sources of democratic legitimacy, and hence also the legitimacy of national parliaments"; c) the role of constituent power of the national parliaments is not challenged. It is, moreover, one of the arguments in favour of a Convention to prepare the next reform (before a concluding IGC); d) the role of these Parliaments in the phase preceding the Community decisions is less clear. Mr Barnier said it was "too soon" to give a stance on the hypothesis of a second house alongside the EP but does not conceal his perplexity regarding the possibility of a double mandate (parliamentarians that would be both national MPs and MEPs); e) Mr Barnier is less negative about the possibility of giving national parliaments a "right to evoke" European issues, in order to ensure compliance with subsidiary and the proportionality of EU competences. He spoke of the possibility within the Council of ministers being sometimes accompanied by national parliamentarians.
Some of the national parliamentarians have gone further, calling for the possibility of discussing European legislation before it has been promulgated, based on the thesis of the "second house" (see our bulletin of 23 March, p.5).
The principle of major involvement of national parliaments in European issues is acquired and so much the better ("is it not time to recognise that different sources of legitimacy exist together in Europe?", said Michel Barnier). One must ensure, however, that this does not lead to the unravelling of what has been woven in half a century of European construction (see this same heading in EUROPE of 2/3 April).
Mr Bonde shows his hand. "SOS Democracy", the European Parliament Intergroup which is opposed to the "official" guidelines for European construction, has organised its first debate open to the public. One of the organisers, Jens-Peter Bonde, presented with laudable frankness the theses that the intergroup will be defending during the debate on Europe tomorrow. He radically demolished the institutional functioning of the EU and the Treaty of Nice, whose main objective is, he states, a new transfer of European decisions "from citizens towards officials". Opposite Mr Bonde and Mr Berthu, who chaired the morning sitting, the Commission was represented by the Commissioner Barnier's chef de cabinet, Ms Christine Roger. Mr Bonde introduced her in the following way: "She prepares speeches for Mr Barnier. This time she will tell us directly what she usually makes her Commissioner say". Very friendly for both, isn't it? We shall come back in more detail to Mr Bonde's presentation that we believe was as lively as removed from European reality, and to the simple and clear presentation that Ms Roger gave of the process under way. The positive element is that the contradictory debate has begun, although, if the truth is to be said, the public (other than a handful of officials) did not give the impression that it was really following and assessing arguments, giving the same polite applause to opposing arguments.
(F.R.)