Let's listen to Michel Barnier. "We take the risk of provoking. It is less serious than that of being sidelined. But I'm sure that what the Convention will propose will not be all that far from what we are proposing". That is what Michel Barnier declared over the "project for the European Union" that the Commission handed last week to the Convention. And the European Commissioner responsible for this paper - with President Prodi and his colleague Antonio Vitorino - added: "it's the first time that we have a pluralistic place for debate in Europe. It is the Heads of State and/or Government that chose this method of progressing. They cannot be indifferent to what happens in the Convention".
This dual precision by Michel Barnier responds in a very timely manner to two ongoing slides in the debate and two attacks at the Convention. The first is tat a part of the press (notably British) and the spokespeople for certain capitals have already tried to demolish the Commission's project, qualifying it as unacceptable and inappropriate. The second reason is that some circles have begun a little too hastily to dismantle the significance and scope of the Convention, and the grand hopes that this new method of building Europe had raised initially. Let's look at in more closely.
Certain diplomats and part of the press… Sceptical reactions to the Prodi Project from diplomatic circles or close to some governments, you have read lie me. Their common characteristic is that demolishers do not often reveal themselves: they are almost always anonymous. I shall take as example the reaction of "a diplomat", gathered by a prestigious newspaper like "Le Monde". "The Commission has fallen back of papers drawn up by officials who want more power for themselves. It is in the process of destroying itself". No more than that!
As for press reactions, I shall also only take a single example, that of Europe's most reputed economic daily, the "Financial Times". Its commentary is pretentious and sententious to the limits of the unbearable. Let's read: Prodi has raised the right problems "but has not provided the right answers (...). It's the reaffirmation of the old community method." This method may mean something in internal affairs (immigration, combating organised crime), but "has no sense in external affairs or economic policy, where governments maintain most of the power". Top affirm that external policy may be conducted like trade policy, proves "political ingenuity". And the columnist concludes: "It is now up to the Convention to ignore the doctrine of the Commission and seek innovative solutions".
The Birmingham speech forgotten? The speech in Birmingham in which Tony Blair proved that his country had always been wrong in its interpretations and predictions on the development of the Community has obviously taught nothing to part of the press on the other side of the Channel, that in its time managed to keep the United Kingdom distant from the Common Market, then the euro, announcing that these projects would never succeed: we know the rest. I do not want to say that British Euro-sceptics are wrong; everyone is free to have their convictions and choices. I simply want to recall that, according to Tony Blair, they have always been wrong. And several signs indicate that they could be wrong this time too. Instead of dictating to the Convention what it must do and decreeing that it must ignore the Prodi Project, they could, for example, submit some observations to their readers. The first is that the political alliance between the Commission and the majority of the European Parliament is in the process of being reconstituted (notably in defence of the "Community method"); and these are two of the four components of the Convention. The second is that several governments do not conceal their preference for a strengthening and extension of the Community method, as they (rightly) fear the intergovernmental method; and governmental representatives are the third components of the Convention. The fourth (and last) component, are national parliaments, which obviously have specific demands but many of which fear the predominance of the "large countries".
The weight of reality. From my point of view, I draw from these observations the impression that, in its majority, the Convention could come down on the side of the Prodi Poject, as Michel Barnier predicts, rather than a priori rejecting it as sirens in London invite them to do. Sure, there is much to be discussed and ironed out, without excluding the possibility of convergence between certain aspects of the Prodi Project and suggestions over the "President of Europe" (see yesterday's section). Those who a priori reject the Blair/Chirac/Aznar initiative base themselves on the hypothesis that the three head of government are in bad faith and want a puppet at their disposal. It is possible that that is the intention. But I believe in the weight of reality. By his/her role, ambition and gradual understanding of the goals and functioning of Europe, the future President of the Union will be trained not to be a puppet, to seek effectiveness. At the beginning of his term in office, Ramon Prodi himself would not have proposed what he is now proposing, he would not have launched a challenge to a certain number of those who chose him, at the time, in their group of prime ministers or former prime ministers. He is now accused of wanting to strengthen his own position and increase his powers: that's absurd, as his Project, if accepted, will only take effect at the end of his term of office, he will no longer be in the Commission and could even again be a head of government and thus find himself back "on the other side of the barrier", facing a new Commission that he would have contributed to strengthen. And the same reasoning is valid for most of the current Commissioners. For years now, I have seen the gradual ripening of the successive Commissions; several Commissioner arrive in Brussels with a notion of European reality still marked by legends spread with complacency (Europe was born as an economic project at the service of monetary powers, it is not democratic, it is dominated by technocrats), and then they gradually understand what the EU is, what it means, what its objectives are. It's a shame that a year should be lost is such a manner: the learning should come beforehand. Better late than never (there are also those who never understand; an example? Ralf Dahrendorf). And today I consider that the current Commission is one of the best that I've ever seen (it was not at the beginning).
A poor calculation. Enough straying. If the conduct of the current heads of government was dictated by the desire to strengthen the intergovernmental aspect of Europe, they would be making a poor calculation. But I have the feeling that some of them are beginning to understand that were their country to be isolated, even if one of the "large" ones, they would not have great weight in the world and only Europe as a whole can have ambitions. It's not by queuing up at President Bush's door, and fighting to arrive first, that they will be effective, other than for the pleasure of some advantageous photos and some convenient phrases addressed to them by the American President. This is how Peter Sutherland, former European Commissioner for competition and foremost personality in the industrial and financial world, has just described these small jealousies and self satisfaction: "a group of prime ministers running after each other across the Atlantic to meet Me. Bush have an influence equal to zero on the decision-making process in the United States. The Americans make mistakes that will have negative repercussions for Europe and other countries, but we worsen the situation as Europe does not have the weight it would have if integrated. I do not believe in a super-State but in supranational leadership, essential for Europe as a whole to have weight at international level and able to discuss with Washington equal to equal. We shall never manage that by continuing as we are doing." And Peter Sutherland adds that the European Round Table of Industrialists (bringing together the EU's 47 largest companies) is very concerned by the attempts at reducing the weight and prestige of the Commission. Erosion of the Commission's powers and the Community method, would, according to him, lead to "a Balkanisation of Europe as a whole and a return to the law of the strongest tat has dominated the continent for centuries".
Not to be impressed. The Convention must overcome the current difficulties concerning the organisation of its work, the balance between the Chair, the Presidium and the plenary session, the workings of its working parties, the procedure for drawing up initial draft texts. It must especially avoid heads of government casting a shadow over its work. It is true that they will have the last word, within the intergovernmental conference, but - and I'm arriving at Michel Barnier's second remark - they will not be able to neglect the results of the Convention if they reach a broad consensus and are simple and clear. The Convention must not be influenced by the fear of its options displeasing one or other heads of government, nor be paralysed by the impression that its work is unnecessary if it does not please all the capitals. From the outset, the Convention has had the fear of being short-circuited by initiatives of heads of government. The first concrete example was that of the reform of the Council, but precisely some protests be Members of the Convention led the Council to stipulate that what it was preparing in no way concerned the future treaty, but certain changes to the way it worked achievable with the current treaty (and that could already be adopted by the Summit of Seville, within three weeks). And Chancellor Schroeder seized the opportunity to reaffirm the independence and freedom of the Convention, the work of which will in no way be impeded by heads of government.
It's true that, for its part, the Blair/Chirac/Aznar initiative refers to the future treaty. But the Convention must not be impressed nor forget that the personal representatives of the heads of government are among its ranks (they are at times deputy prime ministers or ministers in office). The Convention must not itself play down its role and its responsibilities. (FR)