A conventional that is not pleased. Representative of the Luxembourg Parliament within the Convention, Ben Fayot, published a "short letter" expressing his dissatisfaction over the unfolding of the works. In his opinion, for the moment, nothing has happened. The Convention has approved its working methods and it has heard endless series of three-minute speeches on Europe in general. Its management is antidemocratic, opaque and technocratic, it resembles a monstrous IGC in its size, but minimalist in its democratic aspirations. Mr Fayot recognises that there are press conferences by the President and what the spokesperson is prepared to tell the press about the closed meetings of the Presidium, but this information escapes the basic conventional which, not present in Brussels, is informed through the press. He also notes: we learn that the President will present an assessment of the Convention's works to the University of New York. Lucky New Yorkers. He feels that the convention should gather once or twice per month, that the Presidium's decision must be immediately passed onto the convention members, that the Convention must better organise itself as to its constituents and its political families and that it must establish a rigorous planning for its works (involving fastidious general debates that will be ended after two or three sessions). Otherwise it will be necessary to wonder whether the convention members are only a herd of sheep that sometimes like to travel to Brussels.
Cicero pro Domo sua. The short letter by Mr Fayot confirms what I had written in my short account on 24 April. I quote myself (and I apologise for it): it is not excluded that, in this preliminary phase of the Convention, an external observer who follows the press conferences by the President and gets a certain number of speeches and commentaries, has little chance of seeing more clearly than the basic convention member who hears a great number of speakers, eventually speaks for a maximum of four minutes and then returns to his country of origin. I tried to interpret the behaviour and intentions of the President and draw several general preliminary conclusions of the first works.
To this short account, others are added. Our bulletin reports on a daily basis on the initiatives of the Presidium, the President's speeches, the stances of the convention members and other documents. I have the impression that the convention member who, each day, reads Agence Europe knows much more that Mr Fayot gives the impression of knowing, and they possibly understood why Mr Giscard d'Estaing gave, in the first phase, the opportunity for all members to discuss what they wanted.
This remark implies a modest suggestion: why the does Convention not provide the convention members it deems suitable with a subscription to Agence Europe for the duration of its works?
Portrait of the President. To Olivier Duhamel, who, in the Convention, is one of the European Parliament's representatives, I would happily award the first prize for literature on the Convention for his portrait of President Valery Giscard d'Estaing. I myself tried to penetrate into the intentions and guidelines of the President (see this section 26 April), but I only dare to sketch an outline, political and psychological; moreover, I could not have managed it. Mr Duhamel made his attempt, and his text adds something to my previously mentioned attempt. In N°21 of his "Chronical of the European Convention", Mr Duhamel gave a personal account of the hearing by Giscard d'Estaing before the European Parliament's Constitutional Committee. Below are the main passages:
"Giscard superstar: two impressive hours. The first for a salvo of questions of all kinds. The second for a bouquet of answers, magnificently composed (…).
Giscard standard: of the new Europe he want the symbol. And he clears the way, in a surprising mix of extreme audacity and centrality already cast aside. He dares add: subsidiarity has not been applied; the Community acquis is not untouchable, we have seen a certain slip extending the competence of the Union (…). We live in a profound geopolitical change of the Union. The great reunified Europe must invent another model, respectful of nation States as persistent as different.
Giscard lighthouse: of the Convention he will not be the solicitor, of the new Europe he wants to be the father. It only just started its works and already he outlines its conclusions. What are the priorities? A common policy for foreign affairs and defence. A political addition for monetary Union. The move? Go to the starting point, 105 persons that do not know each other, at the finish line: a treaty, a constituting treaty (…). Legally a treaty, basically constituent in nature, a precise text, short, that the States accept nearly as is. Privilege the Council or the Commission? I was in the community, I have been advisor, I must now enhance and link the two. End of quotation (the above is translated from the French). (F.R.)