It took his new book, presented to a very small circle [Jean-Luc Dehaene "Il y a une vie après le 16" Editions Labor. Lunch debate organised by the CASO group], for Jean-Luc Dehaene to let himself go with his straight-talking and natural verve on the subject of the Convention for which he is Vice-Chairman. Usually, he is very discreet about the matter. He leaves it up to Chairman Valéry Giscard d'Estaing to make the sensational quotes that go right round the world. But the former Belgian Prime Minister has launched into this European adventure with his characteristic vim and vigour. He has avowed that, even in his previous posts of responsibility, he has never liked to just sit around looking pretty, and he is not going to change now. He has therefore fully committed himself to the Convention, and his attitude is positive and reassuring, as proved by his preliminary remarks, the essence of which I give below.
1. The Convention is already a big success. The first results go far beyond what could have been imagined just a few months ago. He cites the ideas that have received broad consensus within the Convention, and, even if they are familiar to us, it still has some effect to see them listed. They are to: a) include the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the constitutional treaty; b) give the Union the status of legal entity; c) eliminate, in practice, the three pillars, according to the principle whereby the EU will act in all fields with the same institutions; d) develop a single overall treaty, and, in so doing, repeal the existing treaties (even if this creates complex legal problems); and also e) the word Constitution is no longer taboo. Furthermore, it is now an acquired fact that the Convention discusses what it wants to discuss, and can tackle any subject. The few restricted issues raised in Nice and even the 60 questions raised in Laeken no longer have any significance. Just one year ago, these results "seemed like a distant utopia".
To these tangible results must be added the spirit in which the Convention deliberates. Mr Dehaene believes in the "alchemy of the Convention", which he notes and lives day by day.
2. The future Europe can only be born from the Convention. The Convention must result, through consensus, in a text for a treaty, and not in a report that presents different options. Such a report "would have its place on bookshelves, but not on mine". In this case, it would be better to not even convene the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), as it would only be a failure, no valid text being able to come out of the IGC if the Convention fails. Several Foreign Ministers or Deputy Prime Ministers are part of this, the European institutions are present, and the national parliaments also. No other structure could do better. In the beginning, some governments seemed to be thinking: we'll let the children have their fun as, at the end of the day, we are the ones who will be deciding. Anyone still thinking that has got it all wrong.
3. Compromises must mean progress. No-one can expect the result of the Convention to reflect his or her own ideas at 100%. The criterion to be adopted, according to Mr Dehaene, is that of progress: if the constitutional treaty safeguards the Community method, improves the way the Union works, maintains the essential principles (including that of solidarity), and consolidates economic coordination, then it is a positive thing and we must accept it even if it is not necessarily the "ideal model". Progress along the right lines must be sufficient for it to be worthwhile concluding. Never could one gain more from a traditional IGC. The final compromise must come from the Convention, as it will not come from anywhere else.
4. Speak about it as much as possible. The work and the stakes of the Convention must be better known. We must speak about it, make it a pedagogical issue, explain it unremittingly. The final result must not come crashing down from the top onto people's heads.
I would also like to add that: a) Jean-Luc Dehaene does not believe in the claimed "democratic deficit" of the Union. It is a subject he does not like. For many, "a decision is democratic if they are involved". But the interests of any one person, or category, or pressure group, do not necessarily correspond to the general interest; and b) the European Commission must resume control of the EU's agenda. Today, it is the Council Presidencies that decide on the programme for their half-year, depending on national priorities. The result is that the priorities of the EU change every six months - which is absurd.
Dehaene's book addresses the main issues on the table (while stressing that there is always the possibility that his ideas may evolve). The European Commission should be composed of ten or fifteen members, no more (with a rotating system). Within the Council, the "double majority" (number of States and population) should take the place of vote weighting decided in Nice "which is hardly fortunate". The Commission must be strong, but not too marked politically. And so on.
(F.R.)