The discovery of the Chinese tortoise. It would be interesting to present an overview of what has been happening and indicate some of the essential directions that have already been defined, at the moment the European Convention is about to start work again. But it's not that easy. I can see at least three discouraging factors for a journalist to attempt a reliable synthesis: a) beyond the plenary discussions, there are a multitude of written contributions to the extent where it is impossible to sum them all up; b) the results of the analyses of the work groups specifically studying the main themes are not yet available; c) the declarations of President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (to the press or in other bodies) provide sometimes very important indications on the state of his reflections but some Convention Members assert that they are unable to locate them within the function of the plenary work. The President also affirms that up till now he has drawn no conclusion: asked about the object that had been put on the Presidential table, he explained that it was a Chinese tortoise, "symbol of a cautious approach that reaches its objective", symbolic of his own patient and gradualist approach.
In fact, the attempt to synthesise that, which I am not daring to do, has been done by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing but obviously with another kind of authority and legitimacy in the article in several newspapers in different Member States on 23 July. This text should provide our starting point as it reveals the soul and ambitions of the President and even his intentions and orientation for the future. The media discuses it as if it is not much more than the initial preliminary to a constitutional treaty put together by the Convention secretariat which is just a work document full of alternative formulas and parenthesis, indicating therefore more of a structure that the choices; it is a document that has no political significance. On the other hand it is the Presidential paper that in my opinion which is significant. It re-establishes, by quoting Romano Prodi, that the Convention, "has the overall future of Europe within its hands " and represents, "the last chance for a united Europe", because with the absence of an overall design, "reasonable audacity", adapted to an enlarged Europe, he only sees one result, "the European Union will slip slowly with or without shockwaves towards a regional organisation of united Nations" (even in January, at the moment of taking up his job, he declared that, "with 25 or 30, the system will become unworkable" and added that, " those who don't want Europe to work can work amongst themselves, others see that it is necessary to ask what will be the outcome of the European project"). At the same time, he says that he is aware that it is not easy to fire up public opinion about the debates of the Convention as, "the sessions are long and the ideas put forward, often repetitive".
"Observations" that look like the first conclusions. What went before does not put the President off and certainly does not reduce his ambitions. On the contrary, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing takes up the comparison between the current project and those that have produced the most famous Constitutions in western history. From his Presidential office, the view does not appear, "so different to that painted by David in the 'Jeu de Paume' during the famous sermon or that, which took place in the Philadelphia Hall of Independence in May - September 1787". He points out that almost all the "Convention Members are MPS or political personnel" and he draws up a balance sheet of a certain number of "observations" that I will sum up:
the common attitude of Convention Members from Member States and those from candidate countries demonstrate that, "they belong to the same Europe, share the same vision and that they pose the same questions";
"no-one has taken a position against enlargement";
"No-one has proposed any step backwards on the acquis of European construction. Even the Euro-sceptics, to be honest, under-represented by the way Members are appointed have not even challenged them";
"we haven't heard any requests for an extension of Community competencies within the internal Union remit. Only demands focusing on competencies vis-à-vis the exterior". The President recognised that there was a lot of questions concerning greater Union efficiency, as well as that of the freedom, security and justice area but, "we haven't heard requests for an extension of classic Community competencies";
"an immense need for simplification and legibility", was expressed. The President developed the thesis along the lines of, "the European system has become incomprehensible to the ordinary citizen…with the withering away of confidence for the system in Brussels and the increasing rate of abstentions at elections".
The goal for a constitutional treaty has become quite clear. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has acknowledged that, "the demands for simplification" is a fundamental conclusion: this demand has provoked, "the almost general recognition that the Convention has to work towards an overall coherent proposal" and he is determined that as a result of this observation it ought to become a definitive result. This passage of the Giscardian paper deserves to be quoted in its entirety, as it poses the question presented at the beginning of the work but on which opinions are still very different, "Members have become aware that the Convention should at the end of its mandate propose the future European Constitution - or Constitutional treaty - in responding, without prejudice or taboos to all the questions identified during the listening phase. This Constitution of Europe will legally take the form of a treaty, given that it will be the States that will sign". And the President adds that to, "express popular support for this project, we could imagine establishing a line with the European elections in spring 2004". The overall design is therefore clear: if the Convention reaches the desired consensus, the different people will be invited to say whether they are for the project or not by voting in 2004. If a positive result is obtained, the future Intergovernmental Conference will hardly have more room for re-negotiating or modifying the "constitutional treaty". And this explains the comparison with the Convention of Philadelphia, which gave birth to the United States of America (which obviously doesn't mean that Europe must align itself on the US formula. On the contrary, the united nations, which characterise the European continent will remain; the hypothesis of a European super-state only exists in the imagination of the Euro-sceptics and is not envisaged by any of the Community institutions).
Going beyond inter-institutional quarrels. This is not all. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is going further and has called on Members to forget their inter-institutional quarrels about the details. In his opinion "old debates such as the quarrel between the federalists and the inter-governmentalists or the rivalry between the Commission and the Council" must be forgotten. What public opinion wants is clear: simplification, efficiency, an assertive European presence for defending its values, a security system that is more coherent in facing down terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal immigration. Moreover, "the temptation of a lot of Convention Members is to interpret these demands in institutional terms: majority qualified voting, the election of the European Commission or Parliament President…But it appears that the public is far more worried by the results than by the procedure. The judgement on Convention proposals in these fields will focus on their efficient practices. Institutional adaptations as such do no raise much interest". It is here that the President announces that the institutional initiative that he envisages and which our bulletin has already described, "I propose that the Convention reflects upon the setting up of a European Congress, which we could call a Congress of European Peoples, which would periodically bring together, once a year for example, all MEPs and a proportional number from the national Parliaments". This Congress would not have legislative powers but would be consulted on the development of Union competencies and possible enlargement in the future; "supporting or confirming appointments for certain functions".
The ambition and the quality of the Presidential paper is unquestionable but certain aspects have been criticised or rejected by some Members or certain political forces, sometimes overtly (see the negative reaction of Jo Leinen to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing 's Congress of European Peoples - and he's not the only one) and sometimes expressing positions that do not go in the same direction. The Presidential text poses, therefore, a certain number of tough problems and raises some reservations on which I will look at tomorrow. (F.R.)