All signs suggest that the Convention will steer clear of a doctrine-ridden debate on the future of a European Constitution, which would no doubt have been a lively debate with wise contributions and wonderfully eloquent reasoning, but with slender tangible results since each speaker would have remained convinced of being right and the Convention would not be able to work towards its aim. The option of avoiding theoretical debate was stated at almost the same time by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and the British politician Peter Hain who is representing Tony Blair on the Convention.
Chairman chooses "Constituent Treaty" Chairman Giscard d'Estaing said in Stockholm that one should avoid quibbling over terms ("Constitution" is negative for some countries and positive for others), choosing "Constituent Treaty for the European Union" instead, a kind of basic text that some Member States would see as a kind of Constitution and which would be a proposal for the whole of Europe. Pointers as to what the Convention is planning to do are more important than vocabulary. The Chairman said the aim was to put demands and proposals together emanating from people of different origins, belonging to different parts of the population and even to different cultures, in order to make a positive compromise and produce a kind of plan for the future of Europe.
In an interview, British minister Peter Hain said much the same. The UK would not agree to a document that meant the birth of a federal super-state, favouring a document that explains to citizens the rights and duties of belonging to the EU and adding that if people want to call the results of such work a "Constitution", then the UK would not have any objections.
Klaus Hänsch, one of the two European Parliament representatives on the Presidium, felt that the Convention should have the aim of drafting a "coherent Treaty text" by working as if it were drafting a Constitution (see EUROPE of 20 February, p.4). Mr Hänsch said that most Convention members would be happy for it to be a Convention, as would the German government, but not all governments shared this view and it was pointless to argue about wording.
Mr Moscovici wants to safeguard Community method. The French European Affairs Minister, Pierre Moscovici, who is representing the French Prime Minister on the Convention, outlined his views on the future of Europe in his recent book "L'Europe, une puissance dans la mondialisation", rejecting the German idea (supported by the EPP party) of reducing the Council to a second legislation chamber, saying he found it hard to imagine Blair, Schröder, Chirac, Jospin, Aznar and the rest agreeing to be the EU's senators. He also rejected the idea of scrapping the European Commission (recommended by Alain Juppé and Jacques Toubon) and replacing it with a European government. Pierre Moscovici sees the Community method as perfectly viable, adding it would be a mistake to move away from it. Returning to the intergovernmental method would be a huge regressive step but good reform does not mean pure federalism either, without any real political body and blocking the legitimacy of nation states. He therefore prefers the idea of a Federation of Nation States, an idea originally set out by Jacques Delors and the only idea that can actually reconcile federal ambition, (pledge of efficiency and democracy) with national realities. This formula implies reforming the Council (no matter how reluctant the diplomatic structures are about this) and above all, an effective and courageous application of strengthened cooperation, which Mr Moscovici prefers to the avant-garde or pioneer groups which he see as running the risk of perpetuating the division of Europe into two groups. Strengthened cooperation allows some Member States, not necessarily always the same ones, to lead the others within the Treaties and the common institutions. A centre of gravity might one day spontaneously emerge from the Member States involved in strengthened co-operation without political or institutional schisms in the EU but if the Federation of Nation States fails, then a group of Member States would have good reason to build a true integrated Europe that was both a power and a democratic area for its citizens.
Mr Moscovici also believes in more power for the European Parliament as long as changes are made to its elections. Voter must have the feeling that they are choosing their representatives themselves but that is not the case at the moment in virtually all Member States. This would make the EP less obsessed with the eternal question of power-sharing and make it possible for its to play its part more calmly and efficiently and be able to agree to the "right of dissolution" which would give it greater political importance rather than weakening it. (F.R.)