Commentators have forgotten economic co-ordination. Our readers know all about the European Commission's second contribution to the Convention. They have been able to read the successive presentations by Romano Prodi as well as the initial reactions of MEPs, and with this bulletin they receive the complete document. I shall not, therefore, summarise it once again, other than to recall the main elements: a) the new ways of appointing the Commission; b) the possibility for the European Council to dismiss the Commission; c) the revised functioning of the Council presidency (without a "president of Europe"; d) the move to the system of simple "double majority" (number of States and population) for Council decisions that would represent a genuine revolution and render unnecessary the convoluted constructions of the Nice Treaty; e) the return to the system of "own resources". To that is added proposals relating to amore effective co-ordination of national economic policies, with, notably, the creation of an "Ecofin Council for the euro zone", in which would take part Member States participating in the single currency. It is incomprehensible that these proposals on EMU have hardly been reported on. A few months ago, Community circles spoke of little else, but now that the project has been formalised and detailed, it's neglected. Mystery of European news….
Three small remarks. On the whole, reactions from Convention circles are rather positive, but many members of that Convention do not conceal the impression that the Commission was especially concerned with safeguarding its own prerogatives (which the Commission disputes). To be accepted or, on the contrary, rejected, this claim requires an in-depth analysis. For now, I shall only make three minor remarks on small aspects that president Prodi did not mention, plus one aspect in which, I believe, the Commission lacked courage.
1) for the Commission, an "appropriate institutional framework" represents "the key to the success of the European project". It's true, but not always recognised. It's worthwhile saying so;
2) among the elements that characterise the "quality of life" to which citizens aspire, the Commission includes "the existence of quality services of a general interest, accessible to all", at the same level as the preservation of the environment and a high level of social protection. This recognition of the economic and social role of services of general interest is the fruit of a long path (a few dozens of years) of Community reflection and practice;
3) accepting the invitation of the chairman of the Convention, the Commission proposed a motto for the Union: "peace, freedom, solidarity". Valery Giscard d'Estaing had suggested: "freedom, justice and solidarity". What is there to prevent a four-word motto: "peace, freedom. solidarity and justice"?
Where the Commission lacked courage. And here is the essential aspect in which I believe the Commission lacked courage. It had the merit of raising the problem linked to the fact that the Constitutional Treaty would replace all current treaties, which would simply be repealed. According to the ambitious concept of Valery Giscard d'Estaing, should a country not accept the new treaty, it would be placing itself outside the renewed Union. It's true that complex legal issues would be raised, as unanimity is required to repeal the current treaties; what to do if a country refuses? Here, legal experts must give way to politicians. The Commission didn't dare, and on this point its document is particularly weak. It writes: "there is a risk that certain Member States cannot ratify this text (note: the Constitutional Treaty) and that a single Member State may jeopardise the whole process". It should have added: "which is clearly unthinkable", followed by phrase indicating that the EU would negotiate its exit with the said country, but in no case a refusal to ratify could annihilate the grand project of Europe's renovation. Instead of that type of affirmation, the Commission simply concludes: "this question and the possibility that the future Constitutional Treaty takes effect before being ratified by all Member States, must be studied in depth by the Convention". Unacceptable. The Convention is in the process of doing historical, irreplaceable work, and has to refuse to take into consideration any idea that the rejection by any one national parliament should be able to sink the whole project. The Commission should have rejected any such eventuality, then spell out that legal ways of preventing this would be studied. This is an essential question, especially in the perspective of enlargement, and the Union's stance should have been immediately made clear, to prevent the Convention being constantly blackmailed by less ambitious countries. On this point, I hope that the Convention will have the courage that the Commission lacked. (F.R.)