Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has truly made a political comeback, shrugging off the first criticisms in the press (accusing him of being arrogant and bossy) and getting used to malicious rumours and unpleasant insinuations. This is to be expected and has to be accepted by politicians and the Chairman of the Convention is no icon to be venerated but a politician with a difficult and controversial job. If one commentaor finds him unpleasant and another publishes a long list of his "clumsy remarks", that secondary. What counts is what he does and will do as Chair of the Convention. The rather agitated start of his job calls for a few remarks.
A noble view of the Convention's dignity (and its Chairman). Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has a very noble view of the Convention, of its political significance and importance. He does not see it as a simple laboratory for preparing the way for an Intergovernmental Conference for reforming the Treaty; he almost sees it as a kind of Constituent Assembly for designing tomorrow's Europe. The "clumsiness" he is accused of comes from his idea of both the Convention's and his own job. Take the matter of pay - he explained that he wants the Convention to be in a good position compared with the other institutions. I underline "other" because it shows that for the Chair, the Convention is an EU institution (albeit temporary). So if pay is to be provided, it must be of the right level. But Valéry Giscard d'Estaing added that if the Council decided not to pay, the matter would rest there. The issue of reimbursing expenses would remain, which should be "appropriate" (and will be).
A similar origin can be imputed to other "clumsy" remarks he has been accused of - the announcement that the Chair's duties would soon be taking him to the United States and Russia (see EUROPE of 2 February, p.5). This type of announcement annoys diplomats and probably some foreign ministers as well but is in keeping with the idea of a Chairman - we are preparing for the Europe of the future and discuss the matter with our allies and the other great powers in the world.
Sharing responsibilities. To continue our list. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing held his first meetings with various heads of state and the European Parliament (and also his first press conferences when announcing the Convention's work programme - see EUROPE of 5 February) alone, unaccompanied by the two Vice-Chairs. Neither the programme nor the method were entirely of the liking of the European Parliament which saw a single one-day plenary a month as insufficient and which felt work should be organised by the 12-member Presidium rather than being decided by a single person or a triumvirate or Holy Trinity (Klaus Hänsch's term for the Chair and two Vice-Chairs). A conflict? No. In his meetings in Strasbourg, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing kept MEPs happy by showing understanding and being open to their requests and even sceptics like Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Gérard Onesta had to recognise this (see EUROPE of 7 February, p.5 and 8 February, p.4). I don't know of course whether the Chair went there with authoritarian ideas from which he retreated or whether he had collegial orientations from the start. The important thing is that he denied any idea of wanting to concentrate too much responsibility in the hands of the Chair to the detriment of the Presidium and that there will be two plenary sessions a month.
High aims. The repeated references to the Philadelphia Convention (which gave rise to the United States of America) confirm the scale of the aim - giving the Convention the nature of a type of Constituent Assembly. Attention - these references originate with the European Parliament or other bodies and are not some megalomanic idea of Giscard d'Estaing's… He only made one comment - Benjamin Franklin was 81 when he successfully chaired the Philadelphia Convention (which could imply that Giscard d'Estaing who is 76 (and is sometimes criticised for his age) is not too old).
What the Convention Chair has been accused of so far does not bother me at all and I can say this with all the more serenity because regular readers of my column know that my "first choice" was Jacques Delors, who I see as the great inspiration given his constant and inexhaustible supply of ideas and solutions for Europe, often several years ahead of the rest. (1) The Convention gaining more importance and visibility is important.
It was not Valéry Giscard d'Estaing but a German left MEP elected in France, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who said he had reason to believe that being the Chair of the Convention was more important than President of France (adding that Giscard is well aware that if the Convention works, his name will go down in history). The President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, said you can't understand how marvellous it is to get 105 politicians together, almost all very high ranking. He wandered whether governments would send first or second class representatives and they chose first class - prima donnas, who will sing cacophony at the start. When you take out the cork, democracy escapes, how can you get it back in the bottle again afterwards? It's true that the Convention could die of cacophony but I believe that the politicians are important enough to make it advance and renew the institutions. Nothing's been won yet, but the music is already very loud. For the first time, a debate of this nature will be taking place in all European countries (2).
Mr Prodi's remarks are justified in view of the facts. Two Deputy Prime-Ministers, several ministers, a former President and a former Vice-President of the Commission will take part and they all asked or insisted they take part. MPs and MEPs have fought it out to get a place. There is the same level of interest in candidate countries - at least three foreign ministers will represent their countries. As we can see, politicians are fighting for a place.
Clarity for national parliaments. In the run-up to the launch of the Convention, the European Parliament has provided a new and highly important document - the Napolitano report on relations between the EP and national parliaments. Once again, George Napolitano has provided significant clarity to a complex debate unafraid of taking a firm position on sensitive issues, and Parliament followed his lead by an overwhelming majority, rejecting the idea of a second chamber of national MPs while making constructive proposals for regulating relations that have been strained at times in the past. By brushing aside any closed-off idea of the EP's "exclusive" role in European affairs, Mr Napolitano called for two pillars to strengthen the parliamentary side of the EU - the EP and national parliaments on the same footing, calling on colleagues to get rid of any mutual suspicion and outlining appropriate ways of cooperating, even if plenty of details have to be sorted out (see EUROPE of 8 February, pp6/7). The Austrian Hans-Peter Martin said they had to avoid playing at being the best parliamentarians, while Commissioner Michel Barnier improved the wording by calling for them to not compete in terms of legitimacy. It has always been clear to me that EP and national parliaments both have unchallengeable democratic legitimacy and the controversies of the past were ridiculous. Now this idea is recognised, the first opportunity for testing co-operation will be the Convention, where both kinds of deputy will be present and will be more effective compared with government representatives if they are united.
Other notable changes. The two MEPs on the Convention Presidium, Klaus Hänsch and Inigo Mendez de Vigo, have spoken about some of the most controversial aspects of the Convention's operation. We suggest readers consult page 5 of EUROPE of 7 February, concentrating on three areas - the final objective must be a document not necessarily agreed on unanimously but by a huge majority; and a draft European Constitution that has 51% support will give heads of government the chance to start again from scratch; and b) it will be impossible to vote on everything chapter by chapter, although what Mr Duff describes as straw polls can help test out the majority view; and c) after the Convention, the Intergovernmental Conference will have to conclude by the beginning of 2004 so that the next European elections can be held with citizens knowing about the new Treaty. The tendency of some governments to delay matters should be rejected.
Final remark for today - the European Movement has almost finished preparing its views on the Convention's aims; the draft prepared by the working group headed by Mr Nothomb is currently undergoing the final consultation exercise in the national sections. We will come back on this in detail once the text has been approved.
(F.R.)
--------
(1) The last example is the role of a united Europe as a 'laboratory" for successful globalisation. This idea was put forward by Jacques Delors a few years ago and now takes central stage in the documents on globalisation the European Commission will be endorsing on Wednesday that are outlined in "Notre foi dans le siècle" by Michel Albert, Jean Boissonnat and Michel Camdessus (which I will be commenting on in the future).
(2) Interview with Romano Prodi in El Pais on 8 February.