My attempt to summarise the stances of the protagonists in the Convention on the fundamental issues of institutional reform (see this section of 13 December) had a practical objective and was at most pedagogical. But I am aware of its shortcomings: several stances were not mentioned, the results of the Convention's "external action" group were left aside, some significant aspects of the reform were neglected. My justification is obvious: it was and remains impossible to quote all those who speak, and, among the subjects, I had to make a choice. I would nevertheless like to remedy part of the shortcomings that I recognise. The "neglected subjects" concern, notably, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the idea of creating a "Congress of the European peoples" and the "list of competencies".
Scope and significance of including the "Charter" in the Constitutional Treaty. My task has been enormously facilitated by a text by Convention Vice-President Giuliano Amato, for whom inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Constitutional Treaty (or in an annexe) is a foregone conclusion, following some details on the legal consequences. Here is what Mr. Amato wrote: "It is not easy to reach a consensus on this inclusion and, therefore, on giving the Charter any legal value. To reach agreement, it had to be made clear that in the Charter we find genuine rights (which as such are protected by the Courts), as well as principles (especially in the economic and social fields) the value of which will be to guide the Union's legislative action and which, in the absence of this action, could not be the basis for legal measures".
That is the result of the Convention deliberations on this issue. As long as it is the Vice-President who says so, the question is settled. Tony Blair nevertheless reaffirmed his opposition.
A Congress that leaves some people perplexed. Valery Giscard d'Estaing remains true to his "Congress of European peoples", despite the moderate enthusiasm it has raised. He inserted it in his "architecture" of the Constitutional Treaty (Article 19: see No. 2294/2295 of our EUROPE/Documents series) and continues to defend it, but is not dogmatic as to its name. In his grand speech of 3 December before the French National Assembly, he explained his stance as follows: "Can we accept that in the future democratic Europe national parliaments and the European Parliament should pursue parallel debates that never meet? To get rid of this anomaly, we could set up a forum - whether we call it "Congress of the peoples" or "Convention" - where European parliamentarians and a proportionate representation of national parliaments would meet, at regular intervals and in public, to hear what the presidents of the European Council and Commission have to say on the state of the Union and to debate the latter's major guidelines, including the distribution of competencies between the Union and Member States, or any future enlargements. It would be up to the President of the European Parliament to chair these debates. I hear the criticisms clearly: the system is already complicated enough. But I listen to the thoughts of Jean Monnet: projects are incarnated in institutions".
And Valery Giscard d'Estaing concluded on this point: "we need a forum, or an agora where united Europe's democratic legibility can be further expressed and where the main leaders who enjoy the political life of the States of the Union can meet". In an interview, he said that European parliamentarians were against the Congress because they "see the risk of rivalry" in it. And he stated as among the possible tasks of the Congress that of "proceeding with certain appointments of common interest to the Union and Member States, like, for example the Council presidency".
In fact, reservations or opposition are not limited to MEPs. The Commission did not take on board the Congress in its institutional proposals, considering that involvement of national parliaments must take the form of their control over the respect the principle of subsidiarity, and urged the Convention to look more closely at two other subjects: enhancing co-operation between the EP and national parliaments over the co-ordination of economic policies: attributing to national parliaments the ability to express themselves over the arrangements for financing the Union. For the Commission, "the control that national parliaments exercise over governments is the best way of marking their influence over the Union's activities". This control could be improved by a few changes to the Amsterdam Treaty (see No. 2305/2306 of our EUROPE/Documents series). The Benelux memorandum is, for its part, very clear: "the Benelux rejects the creation of a Congress of European peoples which would only serve to add to the EU's institutional complexity without providing added-value to the current situation"
Several MEPs believe that a radical revision of COSAC (Permanent secretariat, possibility of majority voting) could make the idea of creating a Giscard-inspired Congress redundant. A work group, bringing together MEPs and national parliamentarians and overseen by Convention Member Hubert Haenel, is actively working on this (despite the scepticism of some on the ability of COSAC to reform itself).
The "list of competencies". Not having any clear ideas on the subject myself, it won't be easy for me to clarify matters on this for the reader. I have the impression that certain differences in terminology are creating misunderstandings that add to the confusion.
I am in a position to give you the most recent declaration of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing of which I'm aware, "It is imperative to define a list of competencies for the Convention, we are obliged to respond to this even if some appear to want to abandon the idea…two groups of competencies need to be defined: those that are exclusively within the remit of the Union and those shared between the Union and Member States. Those that aren't mentioned in these two lists will remain within the remit of Member States". As ever, the concept of a President appears simple and clear. But things change as soon as we get to the drawing up of the principles establishing the lists themselves. Should a distinction be established between Union policies, according to which they are entirely Community, decided and managed in common via EU institutions or should they be given much wider autonomy in application and administration by the different counties? This isn't always simple, as there is a tendency to only concentrate what is essential in Brussels. Even the application of policies that are unquestionably European, such as the CAP and competition policy will in part be decentralised.
According to Jacques Delors, the list of competencies that remain the preserve of national Parliaments, should figure in the Constitution. He recognises that this idea, "will make some people tremble", but he considers that the Constitution must affirm that education, culture, health care and social security must remain "national", as they are essential elements of the national cohesion of a country, its identity and feeling of belonging for citizens. But in the time the Convention is creating a work group for social affairs, we are talking a lot about European cultural identity and a common cultural heritage that should be highlighted. Some Convention Members believe that a catalogue of national competencies should be avoided because it would become almost endless.
A President who is more of a "mediator" than "decision-maker". The idea of a Presidential team that allows for the appointment of a "President of Europe", is appearing in an increasing number of projects, even if the methods and how it works are different. Tony Blair, is a convert to it. We will see if this involves a tendency that will become stronger within the Convention. At the same time, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is trying his best to give assurances to those who are afraid that a President of the European Council will create difficulties for the President of the Commission. In the speech that has already been quoted to the French Parliament, he asserted that the, "role of the President will be more of a co-ordinator than a commander; his power will stem more from influence than decision; he will be more of a mediator than a decision-maker".
Latin conciseness. I am returning to the Benelux memorandum because an open document is sought: it calls for "the other current and future Member States that share the same vision of the future EU to support the proposals formulated in the current memorandum". Its options are very clear and expressed with a conciseness and Latin clarity: not a word too many. It's not quite the case that Benelux wants to maintain the rule with a "European Commissioner from each Member State"; it asserts that on the contrary, the Commission in time must be reduced but in respecting the equality of rotation between members. Its exclusive "right of initiative" will have to be confirmed but with the Council and Parliament having the possibility of calling on the Commission to present a proposal and if it does not, it will have to justify why. The appointment of a President of the Summit from "outside its European Council Members" has been sharply rejected, as well as the creation of the Congress of European peoples. The General Affairs Council will have to be presided by the President of the Commission and the External Relations Council by the CFSP High Representative and the European Commissioner responsible for this sector, which will be merged (in compliance with the Barnier project).
The radicalism of Mr Lammasoure. In the last lines of my comments of 13 December, I alluded to "Reflections that are directed towards a more radical modification of the current architecture". I was essentially inspired by the most recent contributions of the Convention Member, Alain Lamassoure, according to which, "the old debate between supporters of the Commission and supporters of the Council is outmoded, there will no longer be a politically neutral Commission and with 25 members of the European Council there will no longer be a directorate but a guiding body". This will result in radical change to the existing situation, particularly with the Commission being replaced by a "new body". I must admit, I'm a little disoriented: adieu to the "Community method" with its institutional triangle? Now, that's what I call food for thought. (F.R.)