Brussels, 29/04/2002 (Agence Europe) - Former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton, who is one of the two representatives of the Irish Parliament at the European Convention, presented to the Convention an updated version (61 pages) of the report on the future of Europe that he had drafted at the end of last year for his parliament's Joint Committee on European Affairs. In his report, Mr Bruton above all poses the problem of the "development of a supranational democracy in Europe" which he sees as "one of the great constructive political challenges facing the western world in the twenty-first century". "The political decisions that can master these problems have to be at a level higher than that of a nation state. That is why enhancing European democracy is so important", the former Taoiseach said. He recalled that the Declaration of Laeken speaks of the democratic challenge facing Europe. Suggestions he makes include:
- Election of the President of the Commission by the People of Europe through European elections. In such elections, the merits of respective European Presidential candidates would be debated "in cafes in Palermo, in wine-bars in London and in pubs in Killarney. To some degree at least, the same conversation would be taking place all over Europe", which would allow swifter progress to be made towards what the Laeken Declaration calls the "European public area", he says. John Bruton, who was Fine Gael leader until last year, recognises that direct election of that kind would cause controversy and no doubt also "false expectations", but considers that "the debate itself would have an educational function". He also admits the risk that such a system would make the Commission more "partisan". To avoid this, he suggests that the President should be elected on "a separate ballot paper" to that used for electing the European Parliament, but on the same day (this is the system used in the United States.
It preserves the separation of powers between Commission and Parliament, Mr Bruton recalls), rather than to allow the European Parliament itself to elect the President of the Commission, but to have the European parties contesting the Parliamentary Elections indicate in advance their choice for President of the Commission. Obviously, a directly elected President of the Commission would be seen as a "threat" by the Council, Mr Bruton adds, suggesting an interinstitutional agreement should be reached (a "political" rather than "legal" agreement) on the delimitation of functions between the directly elected Commission President, the Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the national governments. Some might fear that a directly-elected President would always tend to come from on of the big countries, because of the larger number of voters in such countries, Mr Bruton also remarks. He feels, however, that a politician from a smaller country, with a good command of languages, would have a better chance of being elected because he or she would encounter less opposition". (He adds: "A candidate from an English-speaking country would also have an advantage because English is the most widely understood language in Europe").
- The rotating six-monthly Council Presidency. While acknowledging that there are disadvantages to this system, mainly in an enlarged Union, Mr Bruton stresses the "negative and pejorative effect on public opinion" in candidate countries if the system were changed before the new members had a chance to exercise the Presidency. He suggests a compromise: keeping the six-monthly rotation for the European Council but introducing a new eighteen month Presidency for the Councils of Ministers, exercised by the three successive Presidencies. Each of them would preside an equal number of Councils throughout the period, and "no country would have a presumed right to any particular Council", and, in the case of disagreement, the problem would be resolved by lot.
- Control of subsidiarity. Mr Bruton, who is opposed to the idea of a strict list of competences, "which could soon become an anachronistic strait-jacket", speaks of the possibility of a "Court of Appeal" which should be "political rather than legal", and considers that this role could be exercised by the European Council, at the request of at least 40% of the national parliamentarians in at least one quarter of the Member States (this 40% threshold would also allow opposition parties to contribute to triggering such an appeal, stresses Mr Bruton).
Finally, with regard to the ratification of the Treaty of Nice in Ireland, Mr Burton regrets the "unnecessarily restrictive wording" of the original constitutional amendment to authorise Ireland's original accession to the European Union in 1973. He considers this provision of the Irish Constitution should be revised. "The Irish people, of course, should be required to be consulted, in referendum, before Ireland would agree to a binding Treaty commitment to a new area of activity, or to a qualitative change in the nature of activity within the European Union. Referenda should not, however, be required to approve EU Treaties which just incrementally develop clear commitments already given", Mr Bruton concludes.