Distraught Members? Some personal contacts have left me with the feeling that a certain number of Members are somewhat distraught. They have the impression that the Convention is breaking-up into a large number of stances, without clear thread, and don't see how it can close ranks to move towards stances that could gather a broad consensus. As the Member Alain Lamassoure said, so far we have talked, now we must work. This feeling of running around in circles is understandable . To listen to some 80 interventions in the first working session, and almost a similar number in the second, is not the best way to seize the direction of work. It is possible that, in this preliminary phase, an external observer following the press conferences of President Giscard d'Estaing and who has managed to procure a certain number of interventions and comments, should have a slightly better chance to having a clearer picture than the Members themselves, who hear several speakers, possibly take to the floor for four minutes at most and then return to their country of origin. I shall therefore consider myself as one of these external observers and try to provide a certain amount of order to the signals to have emerged from the first two plenary sessions by turning, for the unfolding of the debates, to the accounts in our bulletins of 15, 16 and 17 April.
The President's clear ideas. My first impression is that Valery Giscard d'Estaing has clear enough ideas on how to sail the ship. Given the fear expressed by several Members of work being remotely controlled by the President or the Presidium, it was necessary to provide for a "period of listening" in which all Members had the possibility to speak, and had carefully to avoid giving the impression of having decided on one or other fundamental guideline before having given the floor to all. In my opinion, he mostly attained that objective: the listening phase enabled him to draw some initial conclusions that were possibly predictable but for which it would not have been correct to claim them has having been gained beforehand.
Seven very general preliminary conclusions.
1) extreme stances, be they radically Euro-scpetic or radically federalist, only have little backing. This indicates the direction in which the presidency and the Presidium will seek the necessary broad consensus for the Convention to be a success;
2) no Member has disputed that Europe should be "a power in the globalised world" (to use the words of Pierre Moscovici, France's representative), or a foremost player on the world stage (definition preferred by those who fear the psychological repercussions of the word "power"). Several Members, however, have remained silent on this, though essential issue;
3) very few Members have spoken out in favour of a "pillage of European powers". The tendency is rather to safeguard them. Among the few exceptions, in addition to the Eurosceptics, that of Mr. Teufel, who represents the Bundesrat (thus the German Laenders, see below);
4) as for new powers, two fundamental fields have often been mentioned: foreign policy and justice (including the fight against terrorism and organised crime, i.e. citizen security). Other than these two fields, that correspond to citizen expectations (see latest polls), there has been no rush in favour of new powers for the EU;
5) the great majority of Members are not in favour of a rigid distribution of powers between the Union and Member States. A list of EU powers would set the situation in stone and prevent any later evolution. A list of powers of Member States is only desired by the few, as it would lead to endless theoretical debates (governments could not agree to a short list, whereas a long list would block any future extension of Community powers), complicating the situation rather than clarifying it;
6) the question of the control of the respect of subsidiarity must be deepened, as initial opinions differ substantially. Some Members favour political control (for example, by a joint EP/national parliaments body), others a legal control (by the Court of Justice). It is not a question of little importance, as among the Members it indicates a certain mistrust towards radicalising tendency of the Court in favour of European law;
7) modalities for a possible future modification of powers have sometimes been raised. Lamberto Dini stressed the need to render this possible, without on each occasion having to pass through an amendment to the treaty, and thus ratification by all national parliaments.
Some points of dispute or entirely open ones. Alongside the unanimous general guidelines or those largely accepted by the majority that I have just mentioned, some points already appear to be more disputed. The stance of the representative of the Bundesrat, Erwin Teufel, in favour of a review of the Union's powers has led to pointed responses from those fearing the tendency of the German Laender to recover some important competencies currently exercised jointly: agricultural policy, regional policy, and especially State aid (indirectly cited under the "protection of nature", but, according to certain Laenders also covering agriculture and regional aid). Ray McSharry said he had heard no convincing argument in favour of the "repatriation" of European powers, and explicitly cited competition, agricultural and regional policies among those that need to remain European.
Furthermore, certain stances have strayed from the majority median line, either in favour of greater integration (Proinsias de Rossa, representative of the Irish Parliament, in favour of European action even in the field of social security), or in the opposite direction,, towards a general reduction in European action. This is not surprising and does not alter point 1 of our attempt at preliminary conclusions.
It is obvious that the very general guidelines set out do not suffice to define what the Convention could, in the end, propose not even on the specific issues mentioned. For example, the fact of generically coming down in favour of European power in the field of foreign, defence and justice policy (see point 3), does not say whether this power should be exercised according to the intergovernmental method, as is the case today for the already existent embryonic action, or by including these issues in the "Community realm". Furthermore, the discourse on the future executive power, which lies at the centre of European reflection in many bodies, remains wholly open in the Convention (the general debate should be held next month).
Regarding some Giscardian phrases. My feeling is that even on these "open" issues, Valery Giscard d' Estaing, knows more than he is willing to let on; he already has his opinions. Otherwise, he would not have been as explicit as he was at his latest press conference over the "operational proposal" the Convention will make on the common foreign policy. The Convention "will not be able to separate" without formulating such a proposal, he said, adding: "in the draft Constitutional treaty, there will be provisions for Europe to speak through a single mouth (…) and for this mouth to be authorised to express European stances rapidly" (see our aforementioned bulletin of 17 April). Another example: the president would not have pronounced the now famous phrase by which the future European Commission of the enlarged EU "will not be able to vote" if it has not been agreed that it will not be possible to avoid the formula "one Commissioner per country" (formula that I use to simplify but that I know to be legally inexact as it gives the impression that the Commissioner represents his or her country of origin; one should say "a Commissioner of the nationality of each Member State"). The reason for this impossibility, also shared by other Community personalities, is simple: all defenders of the "Community method" (myself included) place so much emphasis on the notion by which the Commission represents the central institution of this method that it becomes hard to imagine candidate countries, or certain Member States, admitting the idea of being excluded from it, whatever, moreover, the guarantees and promises of a system of neutral appointments and identical for all. I have had the opportunity of writing that Valery Giscard d'Estaing's phrase, in other words, means that the enlarged Commission will not be able to perform the role of Executive. I could hedge this claim by stipulating: it will not be able to do so under the current rules. Commissioners all have the same weight, and the Commission deliberates through a simple majority; I've already explained why under these conditions a majority decision would have no political legitimacy. The president's phrase could thus mean that the Commission could not be an Executive if the means of appointment and functioning are not reviewed in depth. Reflection on the new rules for the Commission thus need deepening (which, for example, Robert Toulemon has already done), without excluding the possibility of introducing a "double majority" within the Commission, despite the obvious risk that such a formula comprises (as the "weight" of each Commissioner would then be linked to his or her nationality).
If, however, by the aforementioned phrase Giscard d'Estaing means that the future Commission will in no case be able to hold a considerable share of executive power, we should then have to consider whether the presidential reflection is not a slide towards the intergovernmental.
Stances on the fringes. This "short chronicle" is intended to be an account, as far as possible, not only on the work of the Convention itself but also on certain initiatives or stances, on the fringe. In the coming days, I shall therefore devote a supplement to those, among the initiatives and stances, that seem worthy of mention. (F.R.)