A forward-looking project. Romano Prodi stated that his initiative relating to the reform of the way the European Commission works (see this section in yesterday's bulletin) needs to be achieved "without altering the treaties" and that it does not therefore interfere with the work of the Convention, which, for its part, is preparing the future Constitutional Treaty. The president doubtless took the appropriate precautions to ensure that the measures he is considering are indeed possible on the basis of the current treaty and that they may be taken by the president himself with the powers that are already his. But the Members must anyway turn to this forward-looking initiative. He sets out from the assumption that tomorrow's European Commission will have to comprise one Commissioner of each nationality. This is a conviction that Romano Prodi has taken on board for good reasons (referred to yesterday in this section), that will remain valid in the long term.; thus, the Convention can and must discuss it.
Legally, the president is "covered" by the provisions of the Nice Treaty by which the rule of "one Commissioner of each nationality" is valid up to such times as the number of 27 Member states has been reached; thereafter, there will be fewer Commissioners than Member states. As long as Prodi's initiative is based on the hypothesis of ten accessions by 2004, we reach 25 States and the rule decided upon in Nice remains valid. It is, however, obvious that Prodi's opinion will not change with later accessions, and that, consequently, according to him, on this issue, the Constitutional treaty should amend the Nice Treaty (moreover, the institutional provisions of this treaty, be they concerning the composition of the Commission or that of Parliament or the workings of the Council, have never led to great enthusiasm and nobody regards them as valid for the long-term future).
Second fundamental remark: over and above legal considerations, the Prodi initiative in fact amounts to an in-depth change to the way the Commission works. It goes well beyond practical arrangements. Commentators have understood this well; suffice it to read the international press. The British are speaking of an "inner cabinet" within the Commission, others of a "pyramid structure" or "super Commissioners", even a "chief, second in commands and the others".
Must the preceding considerations lead us to consider that Romano Prodi was mistaken in presenting his initiative now? Surely not. On the contrary, he needs congratulating, as it was essential to act, whatever the reservations over certain aspects that his project may arouse. Why?
The reasons for an initiative. Three imperative and accumulated reasons need citing:
a) the intergovernmental tendency and that in favour of an improved and strengthened "Community method" are clashing in an increasingly obvious and explicit manner;
b) the European Commission has submitted to the Convention its "project for a European Union", which (while not asking for itself the role of "European government" and not proposing applying the Community method to CFSP) provides for enhanced powers for the Commission both regarding the economic chapter of EMU and foreign policy;
c) it has been claimed on several sides that the future Commission with 25 or 30 members will not be able to act effectively with its current rules, and even less so manage new responsibilities in vital areas. The chair of the Convention even stated that a Commission with 25 or more members could no longer vote (notably because, within it, the accumulated weight of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain would only be 5 to 30, a minute minority in relation to their population and their economic and political importance).
Under these conditions, it was both essential and urgent to prove that the Commission "at 25" can and wants to work, otherwise the whole scope of its "project for the European Union" would be dashed. Prodi's initiative was therefore necessary, as complement to that project. The sudden way in which the president brought it out may be disputed (Commissioners were only informed of it two or three days in advance), as well as some of its aspects. But it is fundamental that it exists and that Prodi should have expressed his intention of discussing it with the Council and Parliament, which simply means that the three institutions must together discuss the future functioning of the Community method.
The Convention should thus consider this initiative as an essential complement to the "project for the European Union", and assess these together, so as, notably, to avoid the dangers that the Member of the Convention, Jo Leinen, denounced with vigour and determination (see our bulletin of 18 June, p.7). (F.R.)