When Giscard d'Estaing speaks…I am aware that my effort (in this section of 27/28/29 May) to provide as optimistic interpretation as possible about the divergences about the institutional future of Europe, remained rather isolated. Most political personalities and commentators have been underlining the potential conflict between the European Commission's "project for the EU" and the Blair/Chirac/Aznar initiative for a "President of Europe", more than on the possibility of bringing together or combining the two concepts. There is a tendency to over-dramatise the differences.
And here we have President of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, speaking on the radio (Radio France International) and taking a position that is clearly against the Commission document. I'll quote the report that appeared in "Le Monde". Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was of the opinion that the Commission document "brings almost all powers within the remit of one institution that would, for example, be the Commission itself". He comments that, "in a world where people are quite worried, with reactions that are rather negative, the idea that there will be a too strong centralised power over 400 million inhabitants, and which is therefore inaccessible…is undoubtedly not the best approach". VGE's reservations focus particularly on CFSP (see below).
And what about the autonomy of the Convention? Is the Commission project really so centralising? Would you the reader recognise the Prodi project in Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's résumé? I wouldn't. I rather had the impression that is was cautious and contained many safeguards, with the clear assertion that the Commission was not in the least aiming to become "the government of Europe". It tended more to underline the "Community Method" based on balance between the three large institutions of the Parliament, Council and Commission, with each having their specific tasks. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing saw things differently.
"Le Monde" also claimed he made the following remark about the Convention's tasks, "We will not impose solutions that would be against the view of one country or another". Would VGE really have such a limited concept of the Convention's autonomy over which he presides? This sentence is even more astonishing given that the Member States's views are far from being the same and if we're not going to be able to displease anyone, the result of the Convention will be hard to gage. Messrs. Blair, Chirac and Aznar are the three who guide the largest countries in the Union and their positions will weigh heavily in time. But Chancellor Schröder is not exactly on the same wavelength and Vice Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini (Member of the Convention, as we know) has declared that Italy will not support "extreme positions" because it wants to play a mediating role. And then there will be the orientation of most "small countries" who want strong European institutions out of fear of domination by the "big" countries. Positions of candidate countries are rather disparate (and we're not even talking about re-building the traditional alliance between the European Commission and the European Parliament).
A special case. It is true that the CFSP represents a case that is quite particular and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's analysis is perfect as ever, "Sensitivity in external and defence policy remains anchored to national cultures and traditions. The transfer en masse of power sharing from the different countries to the Community, would appear in my mind to be likely to meet enormous difficulties". I think it is pertinent to have drawn attention to this point (in this section on 17 May) before VGE's statement, before Bavarian Minister of European Affairs, Reinhold Bocklet's statement and before the distribution of Commissioner Patten's letter to his colleagues.
But is the Commission really seeking a monopoly of the CFSP? It has stated quite clearly that this is not the case and that even in this field it is not calling for the "Community Method". Michel Barnier, Commissioner for Institutional Reform, has thus outlined the method that would be used by giving the example of Algeria. "The CFSP High Representative and Vice President of the Commission would be exclusively responsible for the initiative but as this is an extremely sensitive subject for France, it would have to first consult and verify if it agrees with the proposal that it is ready to execute. The proposal will then be submitted to the Council which will give its judgement by qualified majority voting". This is the spirit of the project: how it functions must be discussed, which is what the Commission must do in detail and which will certainly be revised; this is the task of the Convention. And if this is the very European Commission term that provokes negative reactions, nothing would stop it from abandoning it. This idea already figures in the Toulemon project and is worthy of developing. I'll therefore be coming back to it.
(F.R.)