Avoiding permanent blackmail. Pity for the poor journalist who had the illusion to reporting, in this section, on all significant stances on the Convention. For an exhaustive overview, I send you back to our daily bulletin. Here, I shall set out what strikes me and what, on my part, leads to a reaction, positive or negative depending on the case.
I shall begin with two positive shocks. The first, I owe it to Alain Lamassoure, for one of the six "key reforms" he calls of the Convention. Former minister of European affairs, representing the European Parliament in the Convention, Mr. Lamassoure defined (in "Le Figaro" of 28 February) the key reforms he regards as indispensable , two of which are fairly largely accepted (sharing the legislative power between the EP and Council, to be renamed "Chamber of States"; a clear distribution of powers between the Union and Member States), three are partly controversial innovations (the appointment of a full-time "EU President", a new system for "own-resources" and the definition of geographic limits for the Union), the last is revolutionary. Here it is: "it is essential that the European Constitution (to emerge from the Convention) should apply when a sufficient number of countries have ratified it, to all those who have ratified it, and only to them, whereas, so far, opposition by one country sufficed to prevent a union between all the others". I have already spoken of this in this section, following some clairvoyant minds: such a device would prevent the Convention being subjected to the permanent blackmail of those urging it to lower its ambitions so that its outcome cannot be rejected by some government or other, by some Member state or other. Entry into force of the future Treaty constituting between countries to have approved it does not mean any exclusion mechanism, but self-exclusion for those refusing the common project. The principle is clear: no people can be forced to accept what they do not want, but cannot prevent those who so chose from moving forward.
The advantages of the referendum. The Second positive shock concerns the European referendum on the outcome of the Convention and the IGC that will follow. The idea is gaining ground. Convention chairman Giscard d'Estaing has taken it on board (not in his official address but in a press conference that followed it), saying that, if the Convention and the IGC arrive at a text of a Constitutional nature, "one can imagine a kind of popular consultation, possibly linked to the European elections". The Convention's deputy chairman, Giuliano Amato had spoken of this previously with the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, considering that Europe had to accept the challenge of a referendum. Sure, this challenge also means another, that of explanation and clarity: the EU has to face up to the disenchantment of public opinion, prove that the Constitutional Treaty will meet the expectation of the people and that it will render Europe more effective and close to the citizens. The obligation of clarity and explanation is another argument in favour of the referendum.
Handing over powers to assume new ones. The third point is rather a remark: the readiness of the European Commission to "hand over some of its powers" in the context of a new distribution of tasks between the Union and Member states has lead to a series of questions that proves the importance attached to this aspect of the Convention's work and its extremely delicate nature. Has the Commission a list of powers that it could hand back to Member states? Agriculture, possibly, State aid, competition? I have the impression of assisting an attempt to speculate on Romano Prodi's sentence on this subject (it is to be found in his speech inaugurating the Convention), by only retaining part of what he said. Having expressed the Commission's readiness to hand over part of its powers, the President stipulated that it was "ready to redefine its tasks to assume new responsibilities in areas where Europe's future is at stake". This is not at all a question of globally reducing the Commission's powers, but rather broadening them, by renouncing those that could be better exercised at national, regional or local level to assume new ones in fundamental areas, where for now the Community method is not practised much and the intergovernmental method prevails. Furthermore, the speech by the President of the Commission is a vibrant appeal for more unity between Member states, in the direction of an "increasingly advanced supranational democracy", and placing sovereignty in common "to exercise it in a real manner, as we have done with the currency". In this vision, there is no room for "Boards", as "Europe cannot be built on the law of some because they are larger and stronger, or older members of the European club". It's a clear text, and it is not right to misinterpret it.
(F.R.)