Don't let real issues get overshadowed. It won't be from Agence Europe that informed the reader of the claimed financial demands made by Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing for presiding over the Convention, nor the overwhelming polemic and sometimes spicy revelations surrounding the discussions at the Council on how the Convention is to be organised. You will have read in the 24 January edition of our bulletin, what are in our opinion, the important things there are to know. Discussions are continuing and everything will be sorted out in the next few weeks. Our readers will obviously be kept in the picture. Meanwhile, four timely considerations.
The first is very general and begins with an appeal. The birth of the Convention on the future of Europe was welcomed everywhere as a very important innovation in the history of European integration. For the first time, Member States accepted that reform of the Union (a reform that could be the most important since the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome almost half a century ago) was not to be carried out in the traditional way, by secret intergovernmental negotiations, but rather by a public debate between the Community institutions, national governments and parliaments. This then will be followed by government decisions and ratification by the national parliaments. It is an historic turning point, for if the Convention succeeds in putting in place a project that constitutes the basis of reform, this new method will have proved itself and will become the model for all future developments. It would be a shame if this were overshadowed when presenting it to the public, and that financial aspect were brought to the fore in an air of scandal that for the moment, is totally unjustified.
The obvious costs. It is obvious that the Convention will incur costs that are proportionate to its size and tasks. In order that it behaves as it ought, there will be representatives from all parliaments, governments, European Parliament and European Commission, as well as observers from other institutions and delegations from candidate countries, more than a hundred members (a figure that is twice as high when the deputies are included). Official documents will have to be translated into all the official languages, as well as interpreting into the same languages in all sessions. Travel costs will be considerable. The President, Vice Presidents and Members of the Presidium will spend much of their working week in Brussels or travelling to see contacts. It would be naïve and demagogic to imagine that this would cost nothing. Civil servants and others are not wrong to point out how much Summits cost or any other Parliamentary hearing - that is the cost of democratising Europe. In the same way that EU special envoys to the Middle East, the Great Lake regions of Africa or the Balkans also have a cost. This is the cost for a European presence in flash-points in the world, in an effort to contribute to peace and stability.
Of course, the financial management of the Convention should be vigorous and any waste avoided. Current discussions do not focus on general principles but rather on financial methods and organisation. Should there by an additional Community budget for the Convention or a more pragmatic formula obliging each Member State and European institution to take responsibility for the charges they incur? In this case, the budget of the institutions should receive additional funding, given that current allocations are already accounted for. The Commission believes that this formula is preferable to that of integrated funding by Member States, as the Community budget offers the best guaranties of transparency and financial control.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing will explain. The second consideration involves the possible salary of the President and Vice Presidents. This is no problem for the members of the Convention, the national and European Members of Parliament, who are delegated from governments or administrations. Neither is it a problem for the members of the Secretariat, civil servants from the Council, Commission and European Parliament. But President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and Vice Presidents Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene should relinquish their current responsibilities for a year in order to fulfil their new roles. The exact role of the President had been raised in the press but confirmation is still awaited.
I believe that the situation is simple. If the principle of remuneration is referred to, it should be adequate; references by the President and Members of the European Commission (without taking into account specific expenses) do not appear unreasonable. But the three individuals in question could renounce any remuneration, and a system of expenses could be employed, with their agreement (the general public would certainly appreciate it). Giscard d'Estaing has described the whole affair as absurd, "Exercising such a role for simply financial gain would be grotesque". His statement that things simply need to be arranged and that he is provided with a house in Brussels, with adequate reimbursement of expenses, appears to bear this out.
Transparency and small-mindedness. My third consideration on transparency. What ever solutions are chosen, the public must be suitably informed and a general system of financing for the Convention and Presidency must be introduced
The fourth and last consideration involves the Convention and is a little more bitter: there's a general impression that certain leaks or indiscretions liable to give vent to a scandal to something that is perfectly normal, have been stirred up artificially and touted to the press. This does not give the moral high-ground to those who are responsible, who share a taste for small-mindedness and harbour grudges. Even more so, given that Community funding for the Convention will essentially be represented by "contributions by the different services" (personnel, rooms, translations, infrastructure costs); additional budgetary costs could reach around EUR 5 million.
European "connoisseurs" to represent their governments. Enough of this financial-administrative row; I return to more serious subjects. Information available to Members of the Convention is positive, overall. I think that this is especially so for the fifteen government representatives, given the pro-European orientation of nearly all the European Parliament representatives but as regards those from the national Parliaments it is too early to tell. Representatives of governments already designated or likely to be are generally individuals who have played a role in European affairs or are doing so now. Henning Christophersen, designated by the Danish government, has been Vice President of the European Commission. Pierre Mosovici, designated by the French government, is Minister for European Affairs. Jacques Santer designated by the Luxembourg government was Head of the European Commission. Peter Hain, designated by the British government, is Minister for European Affairs. The Spanish press has indicated that Mr Aznar and Ana Palacio, MEP (who will be resigning from this role) are candidates. I have highlighted the role that they are playing or have played in European affairs, more than their political complexions. I consider that to participate effectively in the Convention, it is essential to know the EU, just as I am convinced that in general this knowledge creates a sympathetic attitude, just as accession to and the construction of Europe is natural. The worst enemies of Europe are ignorance misunderstaning.
The difficult case of Mr Fini. The representative provoking the most polemic is the Italian Vice Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini and for two reasons: his political background and because Italy will be represented at the Convention by two people, Vice Presidents Amato and Fini. Certain governments hold that these two Vice Presidents must at the same time be representatives of their government. According to Mr Vehofstadt, who Presided over the Laeken Summit, this also holds true for the European Council. The Italian government is firmly opposed and it has the support of several governments. The texts do not help, for only the Dutch version of the Laeken Summit deals with it; in the other versions, the "conclusions" state that "as well as the President and its two Vice Presidents, the Convention will consist of 15 representatives from the Heads of State or governments from Member States". I believe that in this particular case Mr Berlusconi is right because: - Vice Presidents could not play a role if they represent their own governments. It would not be fitting to help the President to define what the compromises are an would open the door to persuasion, how can European interests be defended if they have an explicit mandate to represent their national positions?;- Mr Amato will not accept under any condition to represent the Berlusconi government (he was Prime Minister in the previous government). He would be more likely to resign from his role as Vice President. In other words, it will be Mr Amato and not Mr Fini who will leave the Convention, as Mr Berlusconi has the right to choose his representative, as well as his other government Heads. The political background of Mr Fini is a delicate issue and I intend to write specifically about it due to the general implications involved.
(F.R.)