An old idea has finally ripened. The sensation surrounding the idea of creating a "European President", who would above all chair the EU summits without himself being a Head of Government (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.7), is comforting as it confirms the growing interest of the media and public in institutional reform, all the more as a number of well-known names - Tony Blair, José Maria Aznar - have been cited. And it is known that "personality" is today an essential element in politics. There is already talk of arrangements for such a presidency (duration: five years) and there has been a reaction from several capitals: approval from France and Spain, reticence from Germany and Denmark. Jacques Chirac can even consider himself as the Head of Government who launched the project, as, in his speech in Strasbourg, early March, he had said: "The European Union needs a President. Let us put at the head of the European Council a personality elected by its members for a sufficient period of time. This president would embody Europe in the eyes of the world and would confer upon the institutional system the stability that the EU needs to be strong". (See this Heading on 13 March 2002). Romano Prod's response is clever as it is enthusiastic for the principle and cautious for the terms: "They (the Heads of Government) have finally understood that Europe is important. The idea of a strong Presidency is positive". For the possible risks, see below.

Some readers of Agence EUROPE, however, will have taken all this hype with a smile, as they know the idea is not new - far from it. It had been put forward a long time ago by Jacques Delors, always several years ahead. At present, the Heads of Government are refloating the idea. Recently, it was gone into in greater detail. In particular, the Toulemon project completed it by suggesting that an isolated "European President" should not be created but rather a Praesidium composed of five or six members, which would be more easily acceptable for the different national publics as it would allow a certain balance to be struck between large and small States and between the different political trends. The Praesidium, of course, would have its own president, who would chair the summits, but at the same time its members would chair the different Council formations. The problem of twice-yearly Presidency rotation, a mechanism to be eliminated, would thus be resolved not only for the summits but also for all Council formations.

An intergovernmental Europe would not have single currency. These guidelines must be the subject, in the Convention, of indepth reflection, and one cannot conceal that they comprise the risk of sliding towards the intergovernmental system to the detriment of the Community method. In the Toulemon project, the Praesidium would result from the transformation of the European Commission. In other projects, it is less clear. The president of the Commission, Romano Prodi, has again warned against such a tendency, restating the dangers of an intergovernmental Europe and specifying: "We can even wonder whether such a Europe would be able to create the euro": an appropriate remark as there is not unanimity among the Fifteen on this project, and in an intergovernmental context the opponents would no doubt have sufficient weight to make it fail. The vice-chairman of the Convention, Giuliano Amato, felt that the relations between the future president of Europe and the president of the Commission could resemble that which exists between a president of a Member State and the prime minister. But this is not clear as the institutional systems of the Fifteen differ considerably from one to the other, and one cannot rule out the possibility of ambiguity. But Mr Amato also spoke of a president elected for five years, with vice-presidents elected for a shorter period of time, which could be a solution that meets with the satisfaction of the small countries and which has a certain resemblance to the idea of Praesidium as set out in the Toulemon project.

For the time being, what does appear acquired is the burial of the half-year rotating system, defined by Jacques Delors as pure idiocy. Everything else has still to be specified. The Convention is here for that. This is perhaps its main challenge, alongside that relating to the new powers to be attributed to the Union.

(F.R.)