Brussels, 04/12/2001 (Agence Europe) - Shortly after a meeting held on Monday with President Prodi, Guy Braibant gave a serious warning to those who hope to bring options into the proposed text that is to be elaborated by the next Convention on institutional reform of the European Union. "The proposal of Convention falls far short" of the first Convention that had drafted the EU's Charter on Fundamental Rights, said Mr Braibant, who, after being designated by Mr Chirac and Mr Jospin, had represented the French government at this first meeting. "The subject is far more important this time, which explains why the governments do not wish to abandon it to a Convention", as well as the options and the significant lapse of time that they hope to introduce between the end of the work of the Convention and the beginning of the Intergovernmental Conference. "I believe it is dangerous. I am sure that, if the preceding Convention had had option possibilities, there would never have been a Charter. What meant it had to succeed was the obligation to reach a consensus on a single text. But when one opens the door to options, there's no end to it!", declared Mr Braibant. He stressed that the European Parliament shares this point of view. EUROPE also recalls that the search for consensus on a single text during the earlier Convention had not prevented minority opinions from being expressed on the final text, mainly within the European Parliament. In physiological terms, consensus is the agreement between several organisms to ensure the whole body can function properly . Generally speaking, consensus means consent by a large majority or unanimity of the persons taking part. In practice, the previous Convention had chosen the method of consensus to prevent voting and to progress towards the final text, thus preventing work from being slowed down, division from being accentuated and the project from being weakened. Throughout the work of the Convention, the search for consensus was translated by the search for unanimity within the government component and as broad a majority as possible within the parliamentary components.
How can one reduce the fears of the governments and avoid the option scenario? "I have a solution!" exclaimed Mr Braibant, who pointed out that he had already received a favourable welcome from some well-known figures. It would be a question of organising periodical meetings (every quarter, for example) between the Presidium and the Council Presidency, which could on this occasion be briefed on the state of progress of work and react by directing work according to needs if it appears that any track chosen by the Convention is heading for impasse because it would encounter a veto on the part of one or several governments. Mr Braibant recalled that this had been done at the earlier Convention. During the European Council of Feira, the Portuguese Presidency had hoped that such a meeting would take place and no Council members (not even Mr Blair, he said) had raised objection.
Mr Braibant was speaking in Brussels in the context of a press conference on the results of the national debate on the future of Europe attended by over 25,000 people in France. During this presentation, the former correspondent in Brussels for the French daily Le Monde, Philippe Lemaïtre, stressed that the debate showed that "the French wish to move forward" and that there is a "real demand for Europe", although there is also "great difficulty in deciding how the institutions should evolve", a difficulty which can no doubt be explained by the lack of projects that are truly rallying. "When they speak, it is to ask for a European government" or the election of a president by universal suffrage, but "they do not give their views on the institutional meccano", said Mr Lemaïtre, who specified that the French want "Europe to be directed, to have a direction, a leadership". The French are seduced by the idea of a Constitution, they consider unbearable the blocking linked to unanimity within the Council, and call for changes to the electoral methods in France in order to have a "physical link" with their MEPs. The debate mainly showed that the French hope for social issues will catch up compared to economic issues. Generally speaking, "the taboo of double identity (Ed.: French and European) has fallen", added Jean Nestor, General Secretary of the Notre Europe association presided by Jacques Delors, and co-rapporteur, with Mr Lemaître, of the pilot group for this debate. Mr Nestor, who also spoke of the French reluctance to enlargement (which Mr Braibant believed was mainly linked to the fact that people do not understand who has decided to enlarge and wonder what the borders of Europe will finally be), stressed the need for the debate to be continued.