An '"availability" that changes the situation. The short phrase through which Jacques Delors indicated to the press his readiness to chair the 'Convention on the future of Europe", logically shook the preparation for the decision that the Heads of State and Government must take on this issue within a few days of Laeken. During the Lisbon stage in his tour of European capitals, Guy Verhofstadt listened to the Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres tell him that Jacques Delors is for his country the "indisputable" candidate (see account by the Belgian journalist Philippe Regnier who accompanied the President of the European Council during this phase of his travels, in "Le Soir" of 7 December). Other developments may well arise before Saturday.
What is curious in this affair is that Jacques Delors does not feel he has announced anything new or spectacular. During the press conference in Brussels, which followed the last meeting between Guy Verhofstadt and his five "advisors", Mr Delors, when answering a question from a journalist, stated that, consulted by his country's authorities (the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister) he told them of his readiness to chair the Convention, and his favourable attitude. He added: I indicated to the said authorities that I would not campaign as a candidate, through deontology and respect for French powers. It is their responsibility to speak out on this issue. He concluded: I am not fearful. I was and remain available.
Thus for him, there was nothing new. Which was obviously not the case for at least part of the Heads of Government…
Avoid the bargaining. Whatever the developments by Saturday, what must be avoided at all cost is the choice of Convention President be included, in Laeken, in a greater bargaining including over the seat, so coveted, of Agencies or other Community bodies that are being created. The bargaining over seats, is understandable; mixing in the Convention Presidency is absurd as the Convention needs a President exclusively designated for his qualities and ability to contribute towards the success of the EU institutional reform, without interference from national or other political quarrels. Their must not be any selection criteria.
The "muzzled Convention" of Mr Braibant. Defence for the thesis "single text by consensus" as a final result from the Convention, made by Mr Guy Braibant, not only did not convince me, but rather further reinforced my support for the opposing thesis, that is to say that it is necessary to leave the Convention the opportunity to present, if necessary, opinions. I would even go further: it has convinced me that the obligatory consensus formula could lead the convention to disaster.
Mr Braibant, who skilfully lead the national debate in France on institutional reform of the EU, considers the options formula dangerous, as it would lead each participant to want to slide his preferences into the final document, while the requirement of consensus forced success. This is a real danger, that he denounces, and it will be necessary to prepare against the possibility that certain members of the Convention introduce into this text a number of such disparate options that in the end the result would not be operational and would leave the governments with free hands; but a firm chairmanship may tackle this risk. Which is not the case for the opposed danger: how to avoid that the constraint of consensus leads to a fall in ambitions?
Mr Braibant unveiled his recipe to avoid both the scenario of options and the government fears of seeing born in the Convention a consensus over solutions that would be, for one or other Member State, unacceptable. This recipe, here it is as he outlined it himself in last week's press conference (see daily bulleting of 5 December, p.5). It consists of a mechanism of regular meetings between the Convention President and the Council Presidency, in order to provide the latter with the possibility of reacting, by redirecting the works as necessary, if it emerges that a path chosen by the Convention constitutes an impasse because it would face a veto by one or several governments. It appears to me that this formula would leave a "muzzled Convention": every government would have the opportunity of "redirecting the Convention's works each time such or such aspect of the project displeases it! Through such a procedure, the collapse of ambition levels would no longer be a danger, but a certainty. If the Convention must work under the threat of a veto from each Government, it is not even worth it's meeting.
I think that the most recent Commission Communication on the future of Europe (published in EUROPE/Documents No. 2263) found the correct wording, striking a balance between the advantages and disadvantages of "consensus" and "options". It acknowledges the merits of consensus, adding "The Commission feels, however, that dominant trends and more isolated positions must be brought out, so as to preserve the quality of the work done by the Convention. It is important that the future intergovernmental conference be handed recommendations which are as ambitious, operational and coherent as possible. The Commission will not be satisfied with a watered-down consensus."
More on the Community method. Concerning the above-mentioned Communication, it bodes well that the Commission called it "Renewing the Community method". Patient readers know how much I consider the method to be the basis of success and the proper functioning of European integration. The description I tried to outline here on 6 December matches the method as it was intended by those who invented it half a century ago and also what it has remained, fortunately, in the Treaties for most of the "first pillar". But it has been put down over the years - in some areas, the exclusive right of initiative now belongs to the Commission and, of course, the Community method no longer holds for the common foreign or defence policy or most areas of Justice and Home Affairs. These detours were partly inevitable since Europe is not yet integrated enough to fully apply the Community method to new areas. But it is important to jealously safeguard the method wherever it is legally in force, renovating it where necessary and applying it without fail to future economic integration (including the economic side of EMU) and gradually extending it to new areas. The Commission has made it the focal point of the future reforms of the EU as combining "negotiation between states, expression of the will of the people and the operation of strong and lasting institutions". Full marks to the person who wrote those lines.
The Nothomb Report - a delicate exercise. One of the key organisations that will have its say throughout the Convection's work is the International European Movement - because of its history, transnational and pluralist nature and the role it has played and is still playing in European integration. Its governing body or "Federal Council", chaired by José Maria Gil-Robles, approved a resolution last week (see EUROPE of 4 December, p.7) which is only a prelude to the more detailed accompaniment by the Movement to the Laeken Summit and the Convention's work. A working group has been set up, under Charle-Ferdinand Nothomb's leadership (President of the Belgian European Movement), and made up of Jo Leinen, Pier-Virgilio Dastoli, Marie-Claude Vayssade, Paolo Barbi and Ljubomir Cucic. Its task will not be easy - the Federal Council's meeting demonstrated that over and above clear agreement on the essential objectives, the Movement is moving in two directions in terms of the tactic to be followed: the Movement's historical leaders and Jo Leinen and other "young people" want the Movement to remain in the forefront of the argument for a federal Europe; while the other side, led by Mr Nothomb, wants a more "realistic" attitude of setting targets that can actually be reached and fighting all along the line for what might be the next stage of the European project. Out of the question, of course, of giving up on more ambitious objectives but Mr Nothomb explains that "sobriety" is required in the choice of language, and the Movement has to seek balance between the possible and the desirable.
This attitude appears to be too lukewarm for some of the Federal Council, who saw the first draft Nothomb Report as over prudent. The rapporteur based his position on two quotations. General de Gaulle: ambitions which one cannot achieve are merely weaknesses. Jacques Delors: Europe was not made by doctrinaires but by stubborn realists. The search for a compromise between two directions does not always end well. In the 2 December resolution, the differences in opinion between those who want to mention the objective of a European Federation expressis verbis and those who think this is not a good idea gave rise to the following wording: the federal goal must be formulated in the European manner, corresponding to the demands for unity and the diversity of political cultures in Europe. No matter how many times you read it, you reach the same conclusion - this formulation is hardly likely to mobilise people. The Nothomb Report will be discussed and rehashed in the above-mentioned working group in order for it to present both ambitious and realistic objectives to the Convention. Good Luck. (FR)