It is becoming an increasingly laborious task to follow the avalanche of initiatives and documents issued by the Convention - there are so many of them. They are nearly all available in extenso on the secretariat's website, and our bulletin gives what is essential. I shall therefore simply stress a few points.

• Presidential optimism on the rise. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing had avoided all predictions about the success or failure of the Convention, stressing how uncertain the undertaking is and how uncertain the result. Last week, he took a step forward affirming: "with time and the gap closing in ideas, I believe there is a serious chance of reaching a single proposal of Constitutional Treaty". Which is perhaps a sign of confidence beyond what was hitherto foreseeable.
• The "single proposal" for a constitutional Treaty implies consensus, as the Convention does not vote. Mr Giscard d'Estaing nonetheless reaffirmed that "consensus does not mean unanimity" because, among other things, the presence within the Convention of a core of Eurosceptics makes unanimity impossible. This means that the president considers it acquired that, after the "listening phase" of work, the Convention Member wishing to bring acquis communautarie into question should represent a small minority, while the large majority is in favour of new progress in European construction (even if, of course, positions differ at this stage on the content and the form of such progress).
• Eurosceptics are obviously not resigned to a minor role, and are trying hard to make their positions known and criticise the way in which the Convention has organised the "listening" session of civil society (see our bulletin of 26 June, page 6). And they are entitled to do so. But they will have noted that, in the elections in France, the movements and personalities who campaigned against European construction were severely sanctioned by voters. It is therefore confirmed that, even if the EU is very criticised for the way it works, public opinion does not plan to bring into question either its principle or its essential achievements. It is a matter of reason that the "consensus" at the Convention will be logically founded on this reality.
• Those displeased with the Convention are not only Eurosceptics. Other criticism is also heard on the way work is conducted. Observations are welcome, as there is always room for improvement.

Commissioner Barnier explained that this would be on the condition that Convention Members did not forget that the very fact that the Convention existed was revolutionary. The Commissioner pointed out that, "It isn't the first time we're discussing the future of Europe but it is the first time it's being done in transparency".

• In the same speech on 27 June in Warsaw, Michel Barnier, emphasised that the European Commission would be even more necessary in the future Europe of 25-27 countries than it is currently, because the enlarged Union "will be a mosaic of countries, languages, cultures, traditions and even more diverse national interests". Without the ability to safeguard the interests of Europe, in tandem with these scattered interests, an operational Europe will find itself blocked,. Mr Barnier immediately added, "Let's be clear on one thing: the Commission doesn't want to become the government of Europe. Excluding competition rules, it is not asking for decision-making powers, but that of being able to propose, based on objective and balanced assessments what the European interest is." Not only in traditional areas but also on new frontiers: foreign policy, security and legal issues, strengthened co-ordination of our economic policies". This is a good summary of the Commission's role and one of the reasons why it is indispensable".
• Defence of the Commission by Heads of Government. Those defending the Commission and its role are many and we find them among the Heads of Government. The Luxembourg Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker declared to Pierre Bocev (from the "Figaro"), "The Commission must remain the central axis of the institutional system as it alone represents the general interest that is common to everyone". In a reaction to the Blair/Chirac/Aznar project for a "President of Europe", Mr Juncker added, "there is nothing strange about someone speaking in the name of Europe. Why not the President of the Commission? Under the pretext of greater transparency, we risk giving Europe two Presidents. Despite what is being said, certain people imagine a return to the intergovernmental method".
• This theme should never have been discussed in this section, as the Convention has not received a remit for discussing the "President of Europe". But we're talking about it a lot and Members cannot ignore it, they must, on the contrary, be prepared to take a position on it. Heads of Government have just decided at Seville to continue reflections on the "Presidency of Europe" and have asked for a report on it from the Danish Presidency in December. The Convention must avoid being short-circuited by Heads f Government. But the danger is more theoretical than real because opinions are strongly divergent: the Blair/Chirac/Aznar formula has been thrown out by several Heads of Government (the position of Chancellor Schröder has been impressive in his re-affirmation of support for a powerful European Executive (the European Commission) see our bulletin 28 June at the bottom of the page and in other examples (see bulletin on 26 June p 8, the categorical "no" of the European Constitution" Intergroup at the European Parliament).
• Two positive elements. Here is my conclusion on this point. The Blair/Chirac/Aznar formula includes two positive elements: a) It recognised that an effective Presidency for a Union of 25 members or more cannot rotate every six months (Valéry Giscard d'Estaing described it as causing big problems for Europe in depriving it of "representative continuity", b) It admits that the Union Presidency is a full-time job and cannot be exercised by a Head of Government who is compromised by national responsibilities. These two advances should be taken advantage of - they should be considered as decisive and ought to deepen the debate. Even Javier Solana contributed, suggesting, "two Presidential teams from five countries for a period of three or four years".
• The current "Commission remains limited". The Prodi initiative for reforming the Commission presented some analogous aspects insofar as the Convention was unaffected because it is about current treaties and the Convention is about the future treaty. This initiative is based on the long-term hypothesis in an enlarged Union, in which the Commission will have a Commissioner for each country. Therefore, it is a subject for the Convention. I have explained in this section that the Prodi initiative was indispensable because the Commission cannot request that its role be expanded into new areas without proving at the same time that it would be able to work effectively in an enlarged structure. But what if the starting point of the Prodi initiative is opposed?
• This is not an abstract hypothesis that I've just explained. Pierre Moscovici, who represents the French government at the Convention, considers that the formula of a Commission consisting of a number of Commissioners that is less than the number of Member States, should not be automatically ruled out. This is a debate that after Nice has not been discussed. Formulas adapted to a more limited Commission are therefore on the table, whether this is the idea of a non-discriminatory rotation of Commissioners or whether it is the formula thought up by Jacques Delors: some Commissioners would represent homogenous groups of countries. For example, the three Baltic countries would have only one Commissioner who rotated between them. Other formulas are possible, the Toulemon Project is proof of this. Members of the Convention, get to work!
• (FR)