Grabbing the public's attention. In the context of the EU's institutional reform, defence of the "Community method" is the trickiest thing to handle, not only because guidelines bring it more or less insidiously into question, but also because it is a subject that can hardly stir up the public's passionate interest. Focusing attention on this subject is in contradiction to the ever-stated determination to simplify the European debate, as the two methods may seem separated by all too subtle differences. At first sight, it is only a matter of nuance in balancing the powers to be shared between the institutions. I am aware that, in reality, such slight differences make up the essential part of the way in which the EU's institutions work, and I have even tried to explain this in simple terms under this heading (6 December last). But how can one get the masses to react to such a subject? The debate will inevitably remain limited to a small circle of specialists. While aware of this situation, and pending the Convention's discussions on substance, I do believe I see some encouraging signs alongside the signs pointing to a dangerous slide towards aberration.
Small countries find it obvious. The "small countries" of the EU, that have managed to get beyond skin-deep reactions, understand what it is about. The Community method - involving a strong European Commission responsible for the European interest and having right of own-initiative, and a European Parliament in a co-legislator role - represents the only true guarantee against a directorate made up of the "large" countries. Jacques Delors, who has broken his silence after several months, has stressed that the rigorous application of this method has always coincided with progress made by Europe, and that it is increasingly necessary as the number of Member States increases (see this heading 11/12 March). In Belgium, after the precursor on this subject, Philippe de Schoutheete, not only Jean-Luc Dehaene, Vice- Chairman of the Convention, but also Foreign Affairs Minister Louis Michel took a stance in favour of a strong Commission composed of fewer Commissioners than Member States. The candidate countries should also understand where their interest lies.
Temptations of the larger countries. The authorities of the "large countries" sometimes send ambiguous messages that may give the impression there is a slide towards the intergovernmental method, with the Commission relegated to an administrative role and power being concentrated in the hands of the Council. But I have also noted more reassuring stances at the same time. I have already mentioned the speech by British Foreign Minister Jack Straw in The Hague about the suggestions concerning the Council presidency (see this heading of 2 March), but - as Mr Verloren van Themaat pointed out to me - there was more in this speech. Over and beyond the pleasure of noting that the first Director General for competition at the European Commission, he who had set in place the regulations and structures that went on to gain in magnitude and volume as everyone knows, continues to closely follow European affairs. I thank him for having drawn my attention to the fact that, according to Jack Straw, the strategic agenda for Community activity should be established in collaboration between the European Council and the Commission, and that the debates at the European Council should be prepared by the Commission. Mr Straw is therefore opposed to the "sherpas" who prepare the summits on the fringe of normal procedures, short-circuiting the Commission.
Jacques Chirac's stance is, for one aspect, more ambiguous. He says he is in favour of strengthening the Commission and safeguarding the Community method, but with the possibility of entrusting responsibilities to the Council Secretariat, responsibilities that could result in less power for the Commission by modifying the institutional balance (see this heading 13 March).
The Chancellor makes it clear. Chancellor Schröder, for his part, denied the malicious interpretations of the letter that he and Prime Minister Tony Blair had sent to his colleagues and to the European Institutions. Let us cite his dialogue with a colleague (during an interview with the Chancellor for "Corriere della Sera" of 7 March). Question: You recommend a stronger European Council. Answer?: No, our proposal aims to make the Council more operational, more effective. Question: Are you setting out the road that the Convention should follow. Answer: No. These are suggestions to improve the work of the European Council. We do not in any way anticipate its competences compared to the other institutions. It is, however, clear that a form of presence by governments at European level should exist. Such phrases, I believe, confirm the interpretation of the Schröder-Blair letter that I had set out in this column on 2 March.
The Community method, moreover, does not mean that the Commission is always to be followed. Power is shared and the Treaties specify under what conditions the Council and Parliament may modify or reject a Commission proposal. It is an aspect I intend to come back to. (F.R.)