Brussels, 21/01/2003 (Agence Europe) - Practically all the Convention Members that spoke on Thursday and Friday in the debate on EU institutions requested a strengthening of all the institutions at the same time. The Spanish Minister of Affairs Ana Palacio believed that the Convention should square up to "an equation that does not have a simple solution" and insisted on the principles (balance in the institutional triangle, double legitimacy, efficiency, democracy). According to Ms Palacio, Parliament is the "great emerging institution" and the easiest to adapt by generalising co-decision (she believes that the idea of a congress deserves to be explored), that the Commission ought to remain the "sole agent of the common interest" and therefore be "above battles between the parties" and that the Council should be reinforced. Ms Palacio declared that the stability of the Presidency of the Council did not go against anyone and that the Franco-German proposal could be adapted to keep the advantages of rotation, as the Bundestag representative Jurgen Meyer had just proposed. Mr Meyer had suggested that the President of the European Council be helped by a Troika, which would be the "nucleus of the presidential team" and constantly renewed, in which there would always be a representative from a large, medium and small country. Mr Meyer also stated that the President of the Council should not be dependent on a new administration.
German and French Ministers of Foreign Affairs defended the content in the contribution of their two countries, acknowledging that the functions of the two Presidents of the European Council and the Commission should be different. Joschka Fischer focused on the elements of the proposal that contribute to strengthening the Commission and European Parliament, stating that the contribution offered a synthesis of the Community and inter-governmental models. He asserted that the functions of the two Presidents ought to be compatible and that there should be an extension of majority qualified voting (including the area of CFSP, except on issues of security and defence). Dominique de Villepin asserted that he had heard the reservations and fears, and in Gaulist terms, sought to assuage them: "the rivalry (between the two Presidencies: Editor's note) will not happen…their functions will remain different". After having highlighted the Franco-German contribution on the Commission's monopoly of initiative and the strengthening of the powers of the EP, he concluded that "the time has come for each of us…to move towards each other like France and Germany have done". In response, Peter Hain, the British Minister declared that "I agree word for word with what Joschka Fischer and Dominique de Villepin said", stressing that its was necessary to guarantee that the functions of the two Presidents were sufficiently distinctive and that equality between countries were ensured in better Presidential rotation in the Council sector groupings.
In the discussions on the institutions MEP Klaus Hänsch hoped that they did not focus on the problem of the Presidency of the European Council and that all "taboos" were avoided. According to Mr Hänsch the idea of a "double Head" should be clearly explained: the European Council should be first brought round to its initial role (providing a boost to the political guidelines and preparing strategic decisions) and no more than that; then, a clear delineation of competencies should be provided for the Commission, and the European Council should not have its own administration. Henning Christophersen representing the Danish government also posed some questions of a permanent Presidency of the European Council. What will be the relations with the Council in general, the Commission and Secretary General of the Council?, he asked focusing on the equality between Member States. He also suggested that the President of the Commission be elected by a college composed of MEPs and national MPs, which he claimed would enhance its legitimacy. The representative of the Italian government, Gianfranco Fini, did not find the idea of a President of the European Council that was no longer functioning, a "provocative" idea, but thought that it should be ratified by the European Parliament. He also launched a number of ideas for preserving the "positive experience" of the rotation of the President of the Council: vice-presidents by rotation, the holding of at least one Council in each Member State, Presidential teams. Gisela Stuart, representing the Houses of Commons, said that the Council was too unstable for providing strategic guidelines to European policy and it was therefore necessary to give the Presidency more permanence, whereas the different Member States could
continue to hold Councils and thus be a "showcase" for the others. Ms Stuart insists on strengthening the influence of national parliaments, and proposes, for ex ante control of subsidiarity, that there should be a "yellow light" if one third of the national parliaments is against a proposal, and a "red card" if two thirds are against.
MEP Olivier Duhamel (French Socialist) said they had reached the phase of "major institutional arbitration". He recalled that "it is the Convention that must decide". In his view, there is already a certain consensus on criteria to be respected by achieving such arbitration: dual legitimacy, simplicity, effectiveness, democracy and strengthening of each institution. All proposals, including the Franco-German proposal, must be examined closely according to these criteria, although they will not all necessarily meet them, he said. Examples: the early warning system suggested for subsidiarity calls for greater democracy, but not more simplicity. Full-time European Council presidency, for example, is good for dual legitimacy but not so good for simplicity, and how good it would be for effectiveness remains to be seen. MEP Luis Marinho (Portuguese Socialist) considers the Franco-German proposal is "no doubt democratic but not egalitarian" and focuses political power in Council, "but makes it fragile by nationalising it". However, "coming from whence it comes", the proposal is "condemned to be the best", he added. Josep Borrell, representing the Spanish parliament, notes that "history has proven that diumvirats are unsuccessful". He urged for there to be a clear distinction between the work of the Council which, as a legislative power, should become a second House, the "future federal Senate", whereas, as the executive power, it would be organised into four formations: General Affairs (presided by the elected president of the European Commission), foreign policy/security/defence; justice and home affairs, economic and social matters.
European Commissioner Michel Barnier noted on Friday that President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing had, the day before, "dreamt out loud" of a Union president in fifty years (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.4). He felt that the model proposed by VGE was a "model that the French know well, with a president elected by universal suffrage". He said one could "go one dream further, with a dream that all Europeans would understand" by imagining "a single president at the head of a federal authority" with clearly defined powers that he/she would carry out under the control of a House of States and a House of Citizens. Mr Barnier, for whom this is obviously not realistic today, "but possible and necessary one day" asks whether this solution could not be "included as a final stage" in the new Treaty. In the meantime, he hopes there will be "intelligence and confidence" between institutions, and mainly urges for the creation of a post of "Commissioner with special status, responsible for developing a European diplomatic culture, at the head of an original and mixed structure", a solution that others find preferable. Pierre Lequiller, representing the French National Assembly, also stressed that the Convention must "seek consensus with an open mind". He considered that the Franco-German institutional proposal is a move forward in the right direction. He recalled that he still supports, however, his solution of a "single presidency". And to those who consider that this "exceptional leap" is "too bold", he recalls: "we are already making one such leap" by suggesting a two-hatted function for the future Foreign Minister.
Turkish parliamentarian Kemal Dervis responded to those who fear politicisation of the Commission if its president is elected by the EP, saying: "Europe needs a political dynamic". "We cannot complain of apathy or lack of interest on the part of citizens and then refuse politicisation", he added, before going on to affirm that the coexistence of two presidents (European Council and Commission) should be accompanied by "recognition of pre-eminence for the Commission president".
Some Convention Members propose that national parliaments should be involved in electing the Commission's President - The powers of a president-elect of the European Council should be well defined,
say the rare Convention Members in favour of such a solution
"It is our priority to strengthen the Community method", Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said, taking a stance in favour of having the president of the Commission elected by the EP, by a three-fifth majority. The European Council could be presided by the president of the Commission, he explained, adding: "We cannot accept a long-term president of the European Council". Urging for abolition of the distinction made between compulsory and non-compulsory spending and the ratification of international agreements by the EP, he also declared that he was "resolutely opposed to the creation of a Congress" but in favour of the Convention being an instrument for reviewing the constitutional treaty. The representative of the Estonian parliament, Tunne Kelam, recalled the advantages of the six-monthly rotation of the Council Presidency. He was opposed to reducing the number of Commissioners and in favour of extending co-decision procedure and increasing the EP's budgetary powers. Dutch parliamentarian René van der Linden felt that the election of a Council president would not resolve anything if the large Member States do not agree on
policies but would marginalise the new European Foreign Minister and be a threat to institutional balance. Austrian MEP Caspar Einem was in favour of a permanent president of the European Council but "without operational function and without the power of external representation". According to British MEP David Heathcoat-Amory, "we are running the risk of having a Europe of presidents" which will not bring more democracy or transparency. Giorgios Katiforis, representing the Greek government, urged for a common foreign policy and asked how a "full-time president could do anything but create uncertainty and rivalry". Former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton, who represents his parliament within the Convention, urged for the Commission president to be elected by direct universal suffrage: his election by the EP would make him subordinate to the Parliament, and the three-fifths majority for such election, as in the Franco-German document, would prevent citizens from designating the future Commission president who would be the result of a "private deal" between the groups at the EP (and the president of the European Council would also be designated by a "private deal"). Representing the Hungarian government, Peter Bolazs urged for single external representation whereas the Franco-German proposal means there would be three persons. He went on to ask why, instead of simplifying, one does not return to the "holy trinity". "We already had three communities, three pillars, and now we want the Father in the European Council, the Son for external policy, and the European spirit guarded by the Commission president", he added. On behalf of the Finnish government, Teija Tiilikainen affirmed that codecision must be extended, there must be publication of the Council's legislative work, and the EP must have the possibility to elect the Commission president and maintain rotating presidencies. "There is no room for a president in a real democratic Union", she said, saying that the election of a European Council president would be tantamount to creating an "elitist body at the head of the Union", who would not be answerable to anyone. Representing the Polish government, Danuta Hübner took a stance in favour of EP election of the Commission president while stressing that it will be necessary to "avoid all form of futile politicisation of the Commission" whose independence must be safeguarded. She considers the idea of electing the European Council president for two and a half years as an attractive idea. Erwin Teufel (Bundesrat) considers the body that requires most reform is the Council. The minister-president of the Land of Baden-Würtemberg insisted on: - a clear distinction between its legislative and executive functions; - publishing of legislative work; - generalisation of majority decisions (with double majority States and population), with qualified majority in certain cases and unanimity for rare exceptions; - a European Foreign Minister; - in the event of six-monthly rotation being abandoned, clear delimitation of powers of the European Council president in order to avoid all competition with a president of the Commission elected by the EP; - exclusive right of own initiative for the Commission; - a strengthened EP, including for budgetary issues; - and, as far as subsidiarity is concerned, the right of appeal for national parliaments, the Committee of the Regions and regions with legislative powers. Dutch Christian Democrat Hanja Maij-Weggen urged for a more federal structure and expressed concern about the designation of a European Council president who could override the Commission president (she cited the precedent of Mr Solana who gained more importance than the External Relations Commissioner). "The Franco-German proposal, with two captains on the same boat, is neither democratic nor transparent", she said, noting that, out of the 35 Convention Members who took a stance at this stage of the debate, 24 were against, 5 hesitated, and only 4 said they were in favour of a president of the European Council. She nonetheless stressed that the document also contained many positive elements and noted the inclusion of the Charter, a strengthened EP, and the creation of a European Foreign Affairs Minister. Danish MEP Henrik Dam Kristensen suggested that national parliaments should be involved in designating the Commission president. On behalf of the Irish government, Dick Roche followed closely on his heels by proposing that the president should be elected by an electoral college composed by the EP and national parliaments. Mr Roche also took a stance in favour of a rotating presidency. "I am delighted that the Franco-German engine is working again but I should like it to have the reverse gear removed", Austrian Green member Johannes Voggenhuber said, saying that "Europeans do not want (…) to go back to the method used by the electing princes to elect their emperor". Former President of the European Commission Jacques Santer, who represents the Luxembourg government within the Convention, defended the ideas of the Benelux memorandum (see p.7). "The Commission can work perfectly well with 25 members, but on condition that it is structured around three or four vice-presidencies", he said, also calling for the rotating presidency to be maintained, although he can accept a long term presidency for the Ecofin Council. Hannes Farnleitner, representing the Austrian government, recommended the election of the Commission president by the EP but at a proposal from the European Council. He said he was in favour of keeping the (…/…)
rotating presidency. Swedish Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen proposed a combination between a system of team presidencies for Council formations and an elected president of the European Council with a well-defined task so that there is no competition with the president of the Commission. She also pleaded in favour of: - a generalisation of qualified majority voting, except for security and tax policies that must remain unanimous; - a representative for external policy who would be responsible to the Council; - retaining one Commissioner per Member State; - the extension of co-decision but without automatic link with qualified majority voting in Council. Ms. Hjelm-Wallen considered that the election of the president of the Commission by the EP comprised a risk of politisation and rejected the idea of the creation of a congress. "The role of the Commission must be totally safeguarded", said the representative of the Portuguese Government, Ernani Lopes, against any modification to the institutional balance. For him, the Franco-German document and in particular the election of a president of the European Council amounts to a move towards the intergovernmental system, and "it's an illusion to believe that the intergovernmental model will resolve the problems of the Union's effectiveness and visibility". He spoke in favour of: - retaining the rotation; - one Commissioner per Member State; - the election of the Commission president by an electoral college made up of the EP and national parliaments.
Giscard d'Estaing wonders about the monopoly of a Commission whose president would be elected by the EP
At the end of the debate, Dutch Christian-Democrat Hanja Maij-Weggen again presented a breakdown of stances regarding the election of the President of the European Council. 12 colleagues, including the French and German ministers, voted for, 15 had serious reservations, and 67 colleagues were quite simply against, she said before adding: "I believe that this message is very clear and must be forwarded to France and Germany".
"If things had to be left as they stood … this Convention would be unnecessary", said Giscard d'Estaing, drawing the conclusions of this initial debate on institutions. He stressed the existence of a general consensus to retain the three existing institutions and to preserve the institutional balance (at his brief presentation at the press conference, he simply added that "the idea to retain from this session is the consensus on the creation of a European foreign minister"). Speaking to the members of the Convention, the chairman then made an analysis that led him to ask more questions than the debate had provided answers to. Turning to the institutions, he said that for:
Giscard d'Estaing recalled that the next plenary of 6 and 7 February would be devoted to two debates on: (1) the results of the working group on Social Europe and (2) the regional and local aspects of European construction. The debate on institutions will resume at the following session on 27 and 28 February. Initially, a first series of draft articles should be available, he explained, also inviting the members of the Convention to address written contributions to the presidium on procedures or mechanisms of their choice.