Heavy artillery of Eurosceptics. The initiative by the European Parliament Intergroup "SOS Democracy" to take an active role in the debate over the future of Europe is positive. It is normal that all the trends are expressed and that the "Eurosceptics" take part in the dialogue with public opinion. "SOS Democracy" is formed of parliamentarians from various political groups and different nationalities, who feel that the present direction of the European building process endangers democracy (this is the meaning of their name) and sometime the autonomy of States, and which as a result rejects this policy. Thus here we are reporting, after the few indications that we have given in this section on 4 April, of the first conference open to the public organised by "SOS Democracy". The two sided nature of the debate being, according to the organisers, assured by the participation of Mrs Christine Roger (chef de Cabinet for Commissioner Barnier) and by Mr Fernand Herman, in the face of the heavy artillery of the Eurosceptics: Georges Berthu, Jens-Peter Bonde, Roger Helmer, Francis Choisel…
Mrs Roger played her role perfectly: explaining to the non-specialised public the reasons and aims of the public debate over the future of Europe involving the national parliaments and public opinion. For this debate, open to "civil society", to be valuable and possibly influence the bodies that will then have to prepare the new institutional reform, it is necessary to target the aims and avoid that the most powerful and best organised pressure groups dominate it, to the detriment of general interest. Before discussing the details of the institutional process, we should agree over the project, over what the European want to do together, without hiding the fact that the opinions of the Member States diverge.
The hidden aim of the Treaty of Nice. The follow-up to the debate showed that a neutral presentation of the stakes was not the aim of "SOS Democracy". Mr Bonde threw himself into a conscientious work to demolish the Treaty of Nice. The aim of this Treaty is not, in his opinion, to facilitate enlargement of the Union, but to displace the decision-making power from citizens towards the civil servants. The 34 additional fields that Nice has removed from the unanimity rule to submit to the majority procedures are part of an anti-democratic moving project. The aim of the new project should thus be, according to Mr Bonde, to return to the nations the decision-making power, by removing it from the Commission (which is not elected) and from the "Council civil servants". Mr Bonde underlined that Nice removes from the States the ability to choose their Commissioners: it will no longer be for Denmark, nor any other country for that matter, to chose the Commissioner of its nationality, but a majority vote. Moreover, the mechanism for "enhanced cooperation" will allow to create "States within the State", against the desires of certain member countries. Mr Bonde challenged the existence of a link between the Treaty of Nice and enlargement, as the institutional changes foreseen by the new Treaty will apply either way, whether enlargement happens or not. The entire functioning of the EU is anti-democratic - with a Council that plays the part of a Parliament, a Parliament that does something else, a Court of Justice that does not act as a court, but legislates… - and must be changed; in particular, the national parliament must control the Community activity as a whole.
Christine Roger tried to correct this caricature of the functioning of the EU, by pointing out, for example, that "enhanced cooperation" precisely aims to enhance the European democracy, by avoiding the veto of a single country, possibly smallest, to be able to prevent all the others from acting. The aim is not to impose in this country to do want it does not want to, but not to give it the possibility to block the developments wanted by a crushing majority. All that Mrs Roger gained is that Mr Berthu recognised that there exist divergences, which will have to be discussed in the framework of this debate. We wonder whether "SOS Democracy" will find other volunteers to take part in its one way conferences…
The role of the European Commission is implemented: During the meeting in Paris between Joschka Fischer, Alain Juppé and Jean-Louis Bianco (see this section of our bulletin on 9/10 April), the CERI, International Research and Study Centre, distributed the study by its researchers into the European Constitution and, through this, the future of Europe. Its conclusions are far more clear and precise than those of the debate between the three figures cited. Especially the ambiguity disappears, introduced by Mr Juppé and by Mr Bianco over the future role of the European Commission, ambiguity that affects the principal of an institution independent from the government, guarantor of the implementation of Community law (subject to the rulings by the Court of Justice), having the right to initiative (exclusive for all that stems from the original EEC Treaty) and an own power for decision in a few fundamental fields, such as competition.
The role and nature of the Commission are so innovative, that in the present debate it finds itself stuck between two excesses. At one extreme, the German President Johannes Rau sees in it the future government of the EU, freed from the Council that would become the second House of the European Parliament, which raises many eye brows: whether the Council only keeps the duty of legislator, which would decide on a day to day basis the actions of the EU? Who would define, for example, the European position in a trade negotiation? Who would decide on the attitude towards the United States, or over cooperation with Russia, or the launching of the Galileo project? The European Commission on its own? This does not stand up, even the most ardent defenders of the role of the Commission do not see this as realistic. At the other extreme, Mr Juppé and Mr Bianco have given the impression that the Commission should loose a significant share of its present prerogatives, in favour of an intergovernmental body established in Brussels. Wouldn't the European building process be disfigured.
An institutional model to be preserved. The position of the CERI is differently centred. It asserts that it is necessary to safeguard all the prerogatives of the Commission and not to take into consideration the hypothesis that the Council may become a second House in the Parliament. It is necessary to preserve the existence of a body where the members of the national governments sit and maintain at the same time an independent body from the States, guardian of the founding principals. The Commission must retain its monopoly on the proposing of texts because that discussion is necessarily different to that made on the basis of a text drafted by a common body, responsible for incarnating the general interest and seeking to operate a synthesis, or from the smallest common denominator of the States' positions. At the same time, the role of the Court of Justice must not be lessened and the primacy of Community law must acquire constitutional value. This preservation of the EU's institutional structure would in no way mean that the Commission and the Council must not be deeply reformed. Thus, according to the CERI document:
"Dreamed of opportunity" for the Eurosceptics? The CERI is. on the other hand, careful over a "second House" formed of national parliaments. It is true that this formula would have three advantages: a) put an end to the sterile battle between the Union and the national parliaments, by replacing the technique of grinding at the competences to the benefit of the EP through a more cooperative approach; b) allow the EU to be not only a Union of executives, but also of legislators; c) lift certain barriers in the fields of competence of the national parliaments: taxation, financing of the EU. Though it also includes numerous difficulties, notably greater institutional flexibility and the material impossibility for the national parliament to tackle a double mandate. Thus it will require closely limiting the tasks of the second House, by absolutely setting aside the idea of conferring upon it responsibilities in terms of subsidiarity to the detriment of the Court of Justice and by entrusting to it punctual and serious tasks such as: the approval of the European Constitution and its future revisions, special session on taxation or the financing of the EU, regular debate on the "state of the Union".
A European constitution would only be desirable, according to the CERI, if the conditions cited above are fulfilled. If this is not the case, it will be necessary to fear that the Eurosceptics jump into the breach to push back integration, as a certain number of pro-sovereigntists (Philippe Seguin in France) or Eurosceptics (Edmund Stoiber, Minister-President of Bavaria) see in this an excellent opportunity to carry out the re-nationalisation of European policies. Above we saw the extreme policies of Mr Bonde and echoed colleagues from "SOS Democracy". (F.R.)