Chancellor responsible for European issues? Chancellor Schröder's alleged intention to set up a Ministry for European Affairs in the German government could be seen as the initial application of the EU Council's proposed reforms. This part of the Solana report (or Boissieu report?) on the preparation of the Council on enlargement, foresees the creation of a new Council structure consisting of Ministers (or Secretaries of State) for European Affairs responsible for "horizontal" questions, which would leave the Council consisting of Foreign Affairs Ministers responsible for the Union's external relations. The new aspect of the Chancellor's project is that that the new ministry would not be answerable to the Foreign Affairs Minister (which is the case in France) but to the Chancellor himself.
I don't think that this project is motivated by any intention to reduce the role of Mr Fischer in European affairs but by the awareness of the importance that these issues have for a Government leader. The holding of Summits has made government leaders aware of their responsibilities: their powers and their room for action would be radically reduced, even at an international level, if the situation changes. It is also expected that Summits in the future no longer deal with management of the EU and the huge level of detail that accompanies this task, it will have more of a guiding and inspirational role. But if the "horizontal" Council depends directly on government leaders at a national level, these same leaders will keep a tight reign on the bulk of European issues. The "horizontal" Council will be in charge of preparing the Summits, as well as the institutional questions and the financial framework of the Union (see the Solana report already mentioned). This, therefore, is the initiative attributed to Chancellor Schröder and which constitutes a significant factor in the institutional reform of the EU. It is an internal question for Member States, which are answerable to their national authorities. Governments that wish, would be able to introduce similar reforms (but for some, this could create Constitutional problems).
The creation of a Council consisting of Ministers responsible for European Affairs does not need an amendment to the Treaty; it could be decided as early as June at the Seville Summit, while leaving,, of course, the Convention on the Future of Europe the responsibility of studying reforms stemming from the new Treaty and outlining the new institutional structure of the EU.
The public and the Convention. Europeans are intuitive. If what Mr Tony Venables says is true (and I have no reason to doubt what the President of the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) says), a considerable number of Europeans would like to attend the Convention plenary session in March on the Future of Europe but for which there are only 50 seats available to the public. It is possible that the organisers have done this on the experience of previous Community events that were open to the public: for example, there is hardly a stampede at the "open debates" at the Council, given that these Ministerial speeches are not that exciting for the good-intentioned citizen. There are some notable exceptions. Some Ministers occasionally announce some "hot" subject that's set European current affairs alight but most are restricted to a confirmation of already well-known national positions (summarised in advance, for example, by our daily bulletin) and the huge room reserved for the public is often left empty.
And this is why the Convention appears to be attracting, albeit, a limited public. Those who enjoy following public debates (not the case for most people who work when the debates are in progress) demonstrate a certain interest. This is comforting and those in charge should take notice by enlarging public access, increasing contacts between Members of the Convention and citizens, requested by Tony Venables in his press statement mentioned in our 3 April bulletin.
An understandable request, but…Ms Pervenche Berès made a strong request that at the Convention, Convention Substitutes are able to intervene even when the Convention Members are present (Olivier Duhamel, in his role of Convention Member agrees). This request on the behalf of Convention Substitutes is logical but to enact it would mean in practice doubling the number of Members, whereas Substitutes would still not have the authority or the knowledge of dossiers that Ms Pervenche Berès has. Whilst completely understandable, is her request a reasonable one?
(F.R.)