Two essential principles. The General Affairs Council seems to have become aware of the need to reinstate its role as coordinator for Union activities. This need was already obvious for the Council secretariat, but it was not an easy matter to convince the Foreign Ministers themselves. It seems this has now been done, as they are beginning to show they are aware of two principles:
a) The responsibility of ensuring there is consistency in the activity of the various specialised Councils now falls on the General Affairs Council. At each session, this Council receives a note on the issues discussed by other formations, in order to intervene in the event of divergence.
b) It is for the most part up to the Foreign Ministers to prepare the Summits. On the eve of the Ghent Summit, Ministers were for the very first time opposed to this preparation being carried out by the "sherpas" of Prime Ministers, on the fringe of Community procedures. They claimed it was the role of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, a Community body, to examine draft declarations by the Heads of Government. In this case, at least, the preparation of the Summit was brought back within the normal Union way of functioning. Is this an isolated case or a turning point? Only the future will tell us.
The two above-mentioned principles should be taken up in the next Council reform, with the other elements on the table (including in particular the distinction between the Council's executive function and legislative function and the increased frequency of sessions at a high political level). The way had been well paved by a large number of studies (with Jacques Delors' "Notre Europe" study to the fore), and this very week the Parliament is taking a stance on the excellent report by Jacques Poos. In several months from now, it will be up to the Convention mandated to prepare the new Treaty to put its ideas forward. We shall see.
Mr Barnier is caught between caution and daring. Next month, the European Commission will be holding a seminar for discussing the next institutional reform of the EU. To prepare the seminar, Michel Barnier has drawn up a "personal note" addressed to his Commissioner colleagues, overviewing the problems. Given its preparatory nature, the note does not suggest solutions, but enumerates the problems and makes several statements of fact. Mr Barnier does not take a stance at this stage between those supporting "options" and those supporting "consensus" for the work of the future Convention, or between the supporters of "multiple enhanced cooperation" and those who want a real, structured vanguard. Despite such caution, Mr Bernier considers the following statement of fact as already acquired: "the reality is that there is in Europe and for Europe different resolves, different ambitions (…). Institutional reform must take reality into account, that is, the different capacity and determination existing between Member States", which implies the hypothesis of differentiated integration. Several firm points are also given: - greater involvement of national parliaments in Community decisions; the creation of a "Legislative Affairs Council"; generalisation of Parliament/Council codecision; review of the modalities for election of MEPs in order to bring voters closer to those they elect; the eventuality of dissolving the EP; and reflection on the introduction of the possibility for a Member State to leave the Union. On the other hand, Mr Barnier simply poses the very complex problem of a Commission that would be politically engaged, depending on the result of the European elections. This is a very tricky issue that we shall have t²o come back to.
The possibility of options does not rule out a coherent project. A three-fold compliment for the Union of European Federalists because it has: i) confirmed Jo Leinen, MEP, as its president for the third time; ii) called on the future Convention to elaborate a real draft Constitution; and iii) taken position in favour of a "vanguard of countries that wish to create a European Federation, if some States do not agree to follow this aim". This is how the federalists remain true to their role. At first sight, there seems to be contradiction between the request made by the UEF whereby the Convention must establish a coherent proposal of European Constitution and the position that I have taken in favour of "options" in the Convention mandate. But this is only a surface discrepancy. I wrote: those who are ambitious "must define their project by giving it a structured form, by admitting the hypothesis that those who do not share it may present an alternative project". The UEF said: "the Convention must present a coherent proposal, that it should adopt by qualified majority". It is the same thing. The essential thing is that the Convention should not have to reach a consensus that would necessarily correspond to a "downward compromise". When the Ghent Summit fixed the opening of the Convention's work for 1 March 2002, it endorsed the principle of both majority and minority "options". The UEF's formula is therefore on the schedule. (F.R.)