More needs to be known. The event over the last few days was, it is obvious, the wait for the ideas from Chancellor Schröder on the institutional reform of the EU. His direction is so highly focused towards the supranational that the reactions have been strong, both "for" as "against", according to the beliefs of each. The Chancellor's map is as follows: a) the European Commission would become a true EU government (even if the term "government" is not used as such), gathering the competences and powers that it presently shares with the Council; b) the latter would be transformed into a "second chamber" of the Parliament; c) this Parliament with two chambers would have full control over the budget, thus EU spending, obviously including the common agricultural policy; d) at the same time, the national States would recuperate certain competences in terms of regional and structural policy.
I had the impression that this map remains incomplete and imprecise, even when taking into account the most complete text (compared to the advance version of the Speigel) summarised in yesterday's bulletin, (p.5). It is no doubt only a first approach, and some vital elements are still missing. Is it conceivable that a head of government totally neglects the European Council or that he favours the radical disappearance, while the Summit now plays an irreplaceable role of political engine and defines the fundamental guidelines of the European activity? Is it possible that the Chancellor propose that the fifteen governments entrust the Commission with all the executive power, thus including in the fields of foreign and defence policy, and in terms of justice and home affairs? There have to be significant failings in what we have read. See following page for reactions and comments.
In the traditional vein of German European policy. What seems evident, is that the Chancellor aligns himself with the Community method, thus against the return to the intergovernmental method based on simple alliances between the States (developments that other plans entail, without their authors always being aware of it). Beyond this crucial realisation (but which nevertheless includes an exception of weight, concerning the regional and structural policy: a concession to the Lander?), it would require more precise and detailed texts. We will understand more during the meeting of the European Socialists, on 7 and 8 May in Berlin, while awaiting for the German Social Democrat party (SPD) to approve, in its November Congress, its official position. For the time being, I will keep myself to underlining with the importance that this fundamental point deserves, which can be summarised as follows: the European conviction of Chancellor Schröder is now firmly anchored. The uncertainties or hesitations of the past seem permanently overcome and the Chancellor gives Europe the importance it deserves. The transition of power from the "great forerunners" such as Schmidt and Kohl to the following generation has not weakened the European fervour in Germany. The political leaders at the highest level remain favourable to a solid framing of the strength and dynamism of their country in a European structure and logic, and they do not hesitate, if necessary, to rattle public opinion over a few sensitive dossiers. This should reassure those who, after the Treaty of Nice, expressed more or less explicitly the fear that Germany may give into the temptations of hegemony.
Michel Barnier rejects "soft law". The European Commissioner specially entrusted with institutional reform introduced a new element into the debate over the future of Europe. In an article published by the daily "Liberation" on 23 April, he expressed his opposition to an excessive use of the "voluntary agreements" technique or of "codes of conduct" between the economic actors, instead of regulations or directives. This technique risks pushing back democracy to the profit of corporatism. Of course, the economic and social actors must be informed before the projects in question, (which the Commission regularly does); but the final decisions must be taken according to the Community procedures, respectful of representative democracy. The search, presently underway, for a better "governance" must not be confused with "soft law", elaborated outside any democratic process and free from public sanction in case of infringement. Michel Barnier wrote: let us not confuse the search for a model for conduct in European affairs that is more centralised, closer to the citizen, with the surreptitious entry into a non-law society, where the choices would be withdrawn from the legislators and entrusted to the specific interests of certain sectors of society (…) By depriving those who need true guarantees, soft law only protects the strong.
(F.R.)