WEU Assembly has forgotten something. Contributions to the work of the Convention are all useful and sometimes precious but I must admit that the WEO Assembly has left me rather perplexed (see our bulletin of 5 June page 5). To remove all legislative functions from the Council and completely give it to the Parliament consisting of two chambers (one of which would be elected like the current EP and the other composed of elected national level representatives) appears to me to be going too far in removing powers from the nation States. It shouldn't be forgotten that the EU aims to be a Union of peoples and States and that national governments are democratically elected. I am under the impression that the development outlined by the WEU Assembly is distancing itself from the "Community Method", while the projects are moving in the opposite direction and favour intergovernmental solutions. Personally, I think that this method represents what is essential, namely, the balance between Parliament/Council/Commission and respect for the specific competences of these institutions rather than the detailed prerogatives of one or other of them.
Not for Seville. The Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Erkki Tuomioja and the government Heads form the Benelux countries are right when they point out that the "President of the Union" project mooted by Messrs. Blair, Chirac and Aznar will not be discussed at Seville. It is always necessary to make a distinction between the small institutional reforms for which no Treaty amendments are needed and can be decided on immediately, and fundamental reforms. The latter come from the Convention and anticipating their outcome could involve much of the work for the Members but must not yet become the object of negotiations between Member States. Unfortunately, commentators sometimes have a tendency to mix these two categories of reforms up.
A bit of imagination. Mr Tuomioja (as well as the three Benelux countries: see EUROPE yesterday page 3) has confirmed the opposition of the three small countries to the formulas, which they believe, prepare a kind of "Governing Board" of the big countries. By the time of the Intergovernmental Conference the most extreme ideas will have been rejected, he added. A position that I find re-assuring is in the idea that it is possible to build bridges between the Blair/Chirac/Aznar project and the European Commission document and that the Convention will be able to focus on it. When I mentioned the possibility that the formula of the "President of the Union" is not ruled out of hand, on the condition that the President identifies with the President of the Commission, I had added that if it is the term of the European Commission itself that is the stumbling block, it should quite simply be abandoned. Opponents of the Community Method and the national authorities who are inclined to blame measures that are rather unpopular on the Union, as well as policies that require an effort from its citizens, have succeeded in creating the image of a technocratic Commission isolated from people (this is a bad habit and often repeated and proved by the fisheries policy: see this section 5 June). The Convention should use some imagination and invent a new institutional schema in the framework of the Community Method!
The synthesis of Robert Toulemon. It's not my idea. It figures in the Toulemon project, often mentioned in this column and for which the final draft will be published in our EUROPE/Documents edition. This project contains many qualities that have already been indicated to the reader and which Mr Toulemon will be able to demonstrate himself in publication of his whole text and is rare example worthy of mention and an example of the imagination needed by the Convention.. In restricting myself to the institutional aspects, my current subject, Robert Toulemon suggests that, "A Union Presidency is not only responsible for fundamental orientations but also for delegating them to the European Council and Parliament, and which is able to guarantee the coherency of overall policy and ensure permanent Union government". This would be a "political cabinet within the Commission, five or six politicians enjoying the confidence of the European Council and Parliament, appointed after the European elections to reflect the will of its citizens". This body could be called a Presidium and certainly not a "Board" and which would better correspond to European diversity than a single President because it would allow a balance between small and large countries, north and south, new and old Member States to be ensured, as well as reflecting the diversity of the main political tendencies in the Union. Members of the Presidium would chair the European Council and the Union Councils and represent the Union in international bodies, according to directives that they receive from the Council. The President wouldn't replace the Commission but direct its work after appointing members and having consulted with governments.
This programme would combine the Presidency of the EU, which wouldn't change every six months with the necessary efficacy of a revised Commission. Mr Toulemon defines this as a "synthesis" of the different tendencies rather than a compromise. However one wants to describe it, this project is a precious contribution to the Convention. (FR)