Approved by Jacques Chirac. France is often accused, especially within France itself, of not having a clear stance on the major stakes in the Convention. There are French initiatives, many even, but they come from individuals and not the official authorities. It is, therefore, with interest that I learnt of a "leak" due to Jean Quatremer, in the newspaper "Liberation", regarding a six-page document entitled: "Guidelines for French representative of the Executive within the European Convention". Approved by Jacques Chirac after talks with ministers concerned with European affairs, this document in my opinion contains many interesting ideas affecting essential areas.
1. The institutional structure. According to France, the current triangle Parliament-Council-Commission should on the whole be maintained, but with some changes to the powers and functioning of each of the three institutions. Thus:
- the powers of the European Parliament could be extended in certain fields. The EP could, in particular, vote for the creation of a European tax. France would, on the other hand, oppose the idea of the EP being granted the responsibility of voting on the budget of the Common Agricultural Policy (appropriations on this subject are currently considered as "compulsory expenditure");
- half-yearly rotation of the Council Presidency should vanish, replaced by a long-term president chosen by the Heads of Government and entirely devoted to their European tasks. They would preside over both the Summit and the External Relations" Council and would have at their side a head of European diplomacy who would take over the roles currently held by the High Commissioner for CFSP (Javier Solana) and the European Commissioner for External Relations (Chris Patten). It would not be ruled out that the president could be accompanied by vice-presidents who would chair the other Councils. The "guidelines" are said not yet to contain detailed stances on the extension of majority voting;
- the Commission would retain its current prerogatives, especially the right of initiative, and it could be handed new powers, notably regarding the co-ordination of economic policies (topical question, we know). Its president could be appointed by the European Parliament so as to enhance the institution's democratic legitimacy.
2. Defence. France considers that common policy in this field should comprise "convergence criteria" regarding spending on armaments, so as to establish a certain balance between efforts of countries participating in the policy and which benefit from its guarantees and interventions.
It seems obvious that these initial "guidelines" will be followed by others.
Irish referendum: all satisfied bar one. Jean-Louis Bourlanges is true to his convictions. Convinced opponent of the Nice Treaty (which, according to him, "tragically sidelines citizens from the large states of the Union"), he finds it unfortunate that the Irish should have approved it, lifting the last obstacle to its taking effect. He does not ignore the positive aspect of the Irish vote, on the contrary, he assesses it as it deserves, and his words are as usual effective: "the Irish did not vote on the Nice Treaty but voted for Europe and its enlargement. From that point of view, the outcome is encouraging as it shows that a small country, situated on the extreme west of the continent, has the feeling of sharing a same destiny with the people of the east and south of Europe. It's a victory for open mindedness and solidarity over egoism and parochialism". (statements gathered by Baudoin Bollaert of the "Figaro").
What are Bourlanges' fears? According to him, the Nice Treaty jeopardises the Union's reforms and opens the way to enlargement without the EU having "clarified its project, nor its institutions, nor its borders". But is that not up to the Convention? According to Bourlanges, "given they have been given overwhelming support by the Irish and ratified by their fourteen partners, the provisions of the Nice Treaty, including the most irritating, become sacred cows which the Convention will not be able to meddle with". I believe on the contrary that the Convention will have no qualms in amending the Nice Treaty where need be. The correct formula is thus that of Alain Lamassoure: "the Convention must achieve what Nice didn't". Mr. Bourlanges is right in loudly denouncing the danger that "the Union should dilute into a vast free-trade area, open to all winds and deprived of all will and of all serious political action". But he is wrong in not believing, or at least not hoping, that the Convention can avoid that disaster". (F.R.)