A turning point in Europe's institutional history. The EU has taken a considerable step forward on the road leading to the Summit of Laeken, and beyond. The consensus of principle reached on Sunday in Genval by the Foreign Ministers on the Convention and Forum as procedures for preparing the new Intergovernmental Conference, finally put to one side the traditional form of IGCs as the only assembly that could revise the Treaty. Henceforth, the definition of the aims and tasks of Europe, institutional changes, and progress relating to integration will no longer be discussed during traditional diplomatic procedures but in broader meetings. One year ago, it was hardly possible to envisage such a change. Today, this has been accomplished. Of course, at the end of the day democracy requires the final intervention to come from national governments and parliaments, but the preparatory phase is a determining one. In intergovernmental negotiation, consensus can only be reached on compromise solutions, while a Convention has the possibility of being more ambitious and inventive. Despite the reticence and ambiguity that still exists, the wide consensus noted (see our bulletin of 10/11 September, pp.6/7) represents a turning point in the debate on the future of Europe. Two men lie behind this result: Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, President of the EU "General" Council; and Michel Barnier, European Commissioner responsible for institutional reform.
What has been achieved? The next European reform will be prepared by a Convention bringing together governments, the European Parliament, national parliaments and the European Commission. The fact that the four institutional discussion partners will be working together from the outset radically changes the nature of negotiations and, when the time comes, will facilitate the intergovernmental phase and parliamentary ratification. Louis Michel acknowledged that, in Genval, two or three Member States had expressed some reticence (observers immediately think of the United Kingdom and Sweden), but they will no longer be able to oppose the principle. They will fight over terms and conditions and the mandate. The arrangements cover the way the Convention will be directed (a strong president or a presidium composed of several personalities reflecting the different tendencies?), the choice of president (Wim Kok, Antonio Guterres and Giuliano Amato were cited) and other aspects. The mandate covers the list of points to be discussed (the "four points of Nice", or more?) and the nature of the texts to be elaborated by the Convention, which will no doubt be the guidelines and options to serve as a base for later work by the IGC.
Mr Barnier's "notes". In notes prepared at the end of July for a seminar, Michel Barnier had set out several ideas on the functioning and the aims of the Convention, including: a) the importance of the president, whose authority cannot be challenged; b) organised listening to the civil society without the public debate being confused with the Convention but rather enriching work (see below); c) the possibility of designating "observers" of the Committee of the Regions and of the Economic and Social Committee, which have specific links with the economic actors, the civil society, and regional and local democracy. The results reached by the Convention should be: a) useful (not academic reflection but a base that is technically sound in order to amend the Treaty); and b) of quality (so that there is not consensus "at all cost" to ensure that ambitions remain strong and, if necessary, options).
The Council will also deliberate on questions still outstanding including the status of countries applying for membership. In his notes, Mr Barnier expressed his personal view that "the candidate States should take part in the same way as the Member States, not only with representatives of their governments but also representatives of their Parliament". This view is not shared by all the ministers.
(Separate) participation of civil society. The second aspect that was acquired (or almost) in Genval is the creation of a "Civil Society Forum" which would have permanent contact with the Convention and be able to fuel work with suggestions, stances and other contributions. Some doubts still exist concerning the composition of the Forum, as Louis Michel again raised the question of the "representative nature of delegates of the civil society" (he had also provoked a strong polemic on this subject, see this heading of 26 July and 7 September). Hubert Védrine, while stating he was in favour of the representatives of the economic world, the trade unions, associations, and others being involved in work, stressed that one should make a distinction between their role and that of the Convention, as "we never know exactly what the terms of civil society cover". (F.R.)