Frank and open. The Chairman of the Convention on the future of Europe, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, gave an outline of his organigramme and work programme on Thursday evening (see page 5) and then answered journalists' questions in a very frank and open manner, which he was not always known for in the past.
Getting the ball rolling. Mr Giscard d'Estaing stressed that the Convention would have an immense task to carry out but public opinion was not yet aware of this (and neither were politicians in his view) because it would be discussing the entire European project - aims, powers and institutional functioning. Towards the end, the Convention's work would probably be intensified and might lead to permanent plenary sessions. At first, the four Convention components (national parliaments, the European Parliament, representatives of heads of government and the Commission) would outline their views and aims and comment on the Laeken Declaration. It was a matter of going to the heart of the matter - knowing what citizens want. This phase would quickly give way to the debate itself.
Strategy. The Chairman would be presenting the bare minimum of ready made ideas to the Convention since he was planning to listen to the ideas that had to be put forward by the Convention itself rather than being formulated in advance. The orientation and various concepts have to be worked out (like the idea of a federation of nation states). The Convention's success will be measured through its ability to draw up a grand project but in the initial stages at least, it may divide its documents up (one document on power sharing, another on the functioning of the institutions, etc). Given the large number of members (105 will have voting powers) and their division into different categories, voting by narrow majorities will not work. Mr Giscard d'Estaing pointed out that the Convention on Fundamental Rights had tried to work like that that but had abandoned the idea, so the aim would be to try and reach consensus without ruling out different options or minority and majority positions - the nub would be in deciding how to define the level of consensus.
Composition. The Chairman is happy with how the Convention is made up (including individuals who have some clout at home) but regretted the low number of women members.
Timetable. The first partial draft documents would be available in the autumn and the final document would be unveiled at the end of the Greek Presidency of the Council of Ministers (June 2003) or at the beginning of the Italian Presidency (July 2003). Would it be possible to meet Italy's desire to conclude the IGC (Intergovernmental Conference) before the end of 2003? That would depend on a) the Convention's outcome. If it achieved broad consensus (while leaving a few areas open), the IGC could be short; and b) the date the IGC actually began. Mr Giscard d'Estaing pointed out that the United Kingdom wanted a long "period of reflection" between the end of the Convention and the IGC (as we know, other governments feel this would be dangerous since it would mean relaunching the negotiations). This issue was not in the Convention's powers and the Chairman simply commented that the new Treaty would have to be agreed upon before the European elections (spring 2004).
Civil society forum. Vice-Chairman Jean-Luc Dehaene has responsibility for considering how to organise consultation with civil society as foreseen in the Laeken Declaration, since this will involve decisions on methods and organisation. The Praesidium will decide on the most appropriate structures.
The Nice Treaty. Although the Treaty has already been signed, the Convention may consider issues that have already been settled and move away from the Treaty which, Mr Giscard d'Estaing commented, would mean that some of the articles of the Nice Treaty may never be applied. The most controversial measures concern the make-up of the European Parliament, the European Commission and voting at the Council.
The very least we can say is that there is food for thought in the Convention Chairman's comments. The process of defining the future of Europe has begun.
An inevitable outcome. It might have been predictable but that does not make it reasonable. International media described the most recent Council decisions on the composition of the Convention on the future of Europe as a victory for Silvio Berlusconi since he managed to get both Giuliano Amato (as Vice-Chair) and Gianfranco Fini (as his personal representative) on the Convention. In reality, it was an inevitable outcome. To protect the nature and tasks of the Convention Chair (super partes nature, task of balancing and potentially compromising between national views), it is essential for the Chairman and the two Vice-Chairs to not be mandated by their country's government and therefore not have to defend national views. Moreover, Mr Amato personally is a left wing politician and former Prime Minister who would never have agreed to be in the Convention as Silvio Berlusconi's representative so if he could not have been a Vice-Chair (with corresponding political freedom), he would immediately have resigned, as he had already informed his friends and Socialists from other countries. This would have meant "Socialist views" not being represented in the Convention presidency (Mr Giscard d'Estaing representing liberal views and Mr Dehaene Christian Democrat views). It was logical to ensure equilibrium as the Member States' ministers who expressed reservations at the Council meeting later recognised, reluctantly in some cases. The affair was badly managed at first by the Belgian Presidency (obviously badly advised because the initial idea that the two Vice-Chairs would also represent their countries made no sense) so the Spanish Presidency had to re-align it in a more reasonable direction.
Basically, it is quite a good solution. People who believe that Mr Giscard d'Estaing, Mr Dehaene and Mr Amato will be affected by their nationalities and the views of their governments, will not like the decision for giving France, Belgium and Italy "double representation". While those, like me, who think the three politicians will act fully independently and possibly in opposition to the views of their countries of origin, will not be shocked at all. The Belgian Presidency's tactical error and the attitude of some journalists handed Mr Berlusconi a presumed victory, but how did the media announce the result? Often with headlines of Mr Berlusconi imposing his will by getting two representatives on the Convection, although it was Mr Amato who would have refused, with good reason, to represent Italy's Prime
Minister. (1)
Politicians scrambling to get on board. The fracas concerning the composition of the Convention had a positive impact by increasing its visibility and therefore politicians' interest in getting involved. We got the impression at first that heads of state preferred experts, professors and diplomats. Even if we leave aside the composition of the presidency (former French President and two former Prime Ministers), we have seen Ministers apply to join (Mssrs Moscovici and Michel) and also a Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Fini). Evidence suggests that national parliaments followed suit by selecting politicians with genuine clout at home (as the Convention Chairman mentioned, see previous page). There has been some infighting at the European Parliament in the Socialist group, originating in MEPs' great desire to be selected to take part in the Convention. A huge number of MEPs have in-depth knowledge of the European project or are directly involved in the process and I believe this is crucial. My conviction gets stronger every day that Europe's greatest enemy is ignorance of its objectives, its significance and how it operates. From this point of view, the decision by the Spanish and Luxembourg Prime Ministers to appoint MEPs (Ana de Palacio and Jacques Santer) to represent them is also significant.
Seeking consensus. I'd like to end this first short account of the Convention with a quote from Alain Lamassoure, member of the EP's delegation whereby faced with people ravenous for consensus, one needs the courage to take decisions by qualified majority voting. I like the expression "ravenous for consensus" since consensus is desirable and should not be a restriction that forces the Convention to seek second-rate compromises. (F.R.)
-----------------------
(1) It is interesting that a French paper (Libération) and a Belgian newspaper (Le Soir) focussed on the fact that Mr Berlusconi's manoeuvring had given Italy two members of the Convention or two Convention representatives since both France (from the outset) and Belgium (following the Council decision) are in exactly the same position as Italy.