Brok and Bourlanges speak their minds. In a few days, three important contributions have enriched the Convention - the European Parliament's views on reforming the institutions; the Commission's plans for the European Union document; an three heads of state's initative concerning a "President of Europe". Formally speaking, only the Commission's document is actually an official contribution to the Convention. But all three will influence the Convention debate. It is patently impossible to go into the detail of all three documents in this column; the European Parliament's and the Commission's documents cover a wide range of issues (both documents have been published for our readers in the EUROPE/Documents series).
I would like to concentrate on one aspect - Aznar, Blair and Chirac's suggestions about a President of Europe, compared with the Commission's ideas on strengthening the institutions. Alongside the first Member reactions in plenary (reported on in our newsletter), other reactions on the fringes of the Convention strike a discordant note; Elmar Brok, President of the EP's Foreign Affairs Committee, feels that the Commission's ideas are irreconcilable with those of the three heads of state and feels that the final battle has begun and it's Jean Monnet's Europe against Metternich's Europe. Jean-Louis Bourlanges feels that the President of Europe who will chair the European Council has to be the same person as the President of the Commission since otherwise power would be shifted towards the European Council, leaving the Commission as no more than a secretariat. He feels that the heads of state agree with the existence of a strong power as long as that power is themselves. The choice is between the Community Method of success and progress and the intergovernmental method of maintaining the status quo and failure. Speaking at a conference organised by IEPRI, the two MEPs strike a different tone but basically express the same ideas.
Advance to be seized at? The other view I've been asked to reflect upon (and I extend the invitation to my readers) is that Blair, Chirac and Aznar have taken a significant step in the direction of a European Community by agreeing to the EU having a stable Presidency, and that the President of Europe cannot be a prime minister in office, but must be a personality dedicated to the task in question a genuine "Mr/Mrs Europe", as Jacques Delors recommended several years ago. The idea is that this advance should be seized, leaving the Convention with the task of deciding the details, avoiding an immediate dispute between different views of the "President of Europe". The Convention debates will prove that it will be in the interest of the President of Europe him or herself to have the precious instrument of the Commission staff at their disposal, and will have to be autonomous with regard to the heads of state who appointed him or her and will need the right of initiative, the political force and prestige that can only be provided by investiture by the European Parliament. In other words, it will become clear in time that Mr or Mrs Europe has to be… the President of the Commission. And if that is the Convention's conclusion, the European Council won't be able to ignore it.
This position, which I would call optimistic, may not be incompatible with Bourlanges position, nor even with Brok's. Bridges can be built between the Commission's plans and the suggestions of the above-mentioned heads of state, who don't see the future Mr or Mrs Europe as simply the President of the European Council - Vice-Presidents would in turn chair the various Council formations.
The Commission wanted to clarify what its plans mean in the face of erroneous interpretations attributed to it, and has done so with a Question/Answer background document, the first two of which are: 1. Is the Commission aiming to become Europe's government? No. The Commission is not planning to become a European superstate with a single decision-making centre. The democratic nature of the Union depends on co-operation between three institutions - the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. 2. Is the Commission proposing to apply the Community Method to the common foreign and security policy? No. But it things that some characteristics of the Method could be useful for making the CFSP more effective.
These two answers could smooth over some rough edges and show that there's room for approximation and further work if the Convention operates properly. Not forgetting an important element - rebuilding the fundamental alliance between European Parliament and Commission. (F.R.)