Some reasons for being optimistic. A certain number of Convention Members have not been able to resist the temptation of rejecting en masse the Franco-German institutional document instead of retaining the positive aspects and negotiating the others. Oscar Wilde said that he could, "resist everything except temptation". He certainly has his emulators. I believe that too many reactions to the Chirac/Schröder project were motivated by a single factor, the creation of a full-time and permanent President of the European Council and ignore the occasionally spectacular progress, which in the past appeared to some people as almost unthinkable (see this section on 21 January). The institutional concepts put together by France and Germany were in the beginning some apart from each other we wondered if their positions could ever be reconciled. And yet, it's happened, exactly the sort of small miracle of political will that ought to stimulate a certain optimism. What's been possible between Paris and Berlin could also possibly be used as a more generalised plan in the context of the Convention.
There were just as many Convention Members in the debate at the Convention (pp. 4-7 in the bulletin of 22 January), who drew up a balance of the elements that they rejected and the elements they explicitly welcomed as positive. If the Franco-German document were to be accepted or rejected in its entirety, there would have been good reason for pessimism. But I am ready to wager that the very same President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder were aware that it would not be accepted as it was. It represents an element in the discussion that is important in its origin and because its has proved that compromise is possible. The press obviously think that it is mote spectacular to describe how three quarters, indeed more, of the Convention Members have thrown out the Chirac/Schröder project. Reality is slightly more complex, given the number of Convention Members and other personalities who distinguished between what they like and what they don't like in the project. Leaving Valéry Giscard d'Estaing to count the votes (64 against, 15 abstentions and 12 in favour), Hanja Maij-Weggen explained clearly that the figures referred to the election of a full-time and long-term President of the European Council, not the whole of the document. This is my first comment.
Alternative formulas exist. The second comment concerns the possibility of an alternative to the controversy surrounding the Presidency of the European Council. The Vice President of the Convention, Giuliano Amato spoke about it in the final press conference, indicating that (also expressed on other occasions) that he would prefer "collective responsibility" at the Head of the European Council and instead of an "Individual Chief", a small team whose composition would respect the balance between large and small countries and political tendencies. The continuity of the Presidency of the Summits would be ensured but without the impracticalities of the Chirac/Schröder formula and the distinction between the President of the Commission would be quite clear. I don't think I've got it wrong to think that the small team planned by Giuliano Amato would consist of Heads of Governments, possibly with a Secretary General and not with personalities exercising their European functions full-time.
Several Convention members referred in away that was more or less explicit to the possibility of a collegial Presidency or the appointment of Vice Presidents by the President's side. Almost all stressed that in any case, the long-term President should not dispose of his own administration.
This is still, above all, the formula of a single President at the head of both the Commission and European Council. Pierre Lequiller formalised the idea in the framework of the Convention and explained that he was not abandoning it (maliciously observing the that the "conceptual leap" already exists in the European Minister of Foreign Affair's draft, accountable to the Council and based at the Commission and which was welcomed by everyone as progress) and we already know that it has received some very persuasive support. What we know less about, however, is that the former President of the Commission Jacques Santer supported the formula (he announced this on Monday at the Convention) and that the President of the Commission Romano Prodi had declared that the idea of bringing the roles of the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council together, "could become the final compromise. This proposal fulfils the conditions of clarity, transparency, effectiveness, on the condition that this person is elected by both the governments and the European Parliament" (interview in Trends/Tendances 16 January).
France want's to reassure. My third comment is on the positions taken at the Foreign Affairs Ministers Convention between France and Germany, that's to say between the signatories of the document. Dominique de Villepin wanted to provide assurances to members of the Convention with regard the aims of his country, explaining that he was in favour of the institutional triangle (in particular the pa and European Commission).
respecting the equality between Member States. These assertions need to be borne out but there are several aspects of the Franco-German plan that back up the current sincerity of France. I also find Olivier Duhammel's suggestion pertinent and useful with regard to the five criteria for assessing the different suggestions and proposals: simplicity, effectiveness, democracy, double legitimacy and strengthening of each of the institutions in the "institutional triangle" which is the basis of the Community method. The formulas that pass this exam are good for Europe.
An anecdotal but important comment. The fourth comment is more anecdotal: several days before the presentation of the Franco-German document, the press in several Member States examined the possible candidates: José-Maria Aznar, Joschka Fischer, Tony Blair (also the Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis) for the Presidency…of the Commission! There were some refutations but the source of the rumours involving Mr Aznar stemmed from the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ana de Palacio, who declared in "Cinco Dias" that her Prime Minister had the "ideal profile" for Commission President and that this opinion was widely shared. Despite the refutations, the impression remains that the top-notch politicians' ambitions, who announced their forthcoming retirements from the national arenas were going in a European direction as expected but even more so in the direction of the Commission, which was less expected. We can also deduce that the hypothesis of having a "President of Europe" is no longer considered as realistic. Peter Hain, representative of the British Prime Minister at the Convention, has explicitly declared in the plenary that they didn't need a President of Europe but a stable Presidency of the European Council.
I am not claiming that my four comments dispel all doubts, far from it. I simply want to say that the debate is open and that the possibilities to react are there. The Convention has a voice.
A problem Ministry. It's true that nothing has been acquired. Even the innovations that obtained a welcome that was positive overall at the Convention raise a number of questions that appear like real difficulties. The creation of a European Minister of Foreign Affairs with "two hats", the Council/Commission represents, to almost general agreement, a considerable step forward in European construction (even if there is no reasonable political personality who doesn't think that it will eventually give rise to a common foreign policy, due to the simple fact that the Ministry exists). But passing from this situation to imagining the implementation of an actual common foreign policy would be simple and natural…The Franco-German document includes plans for a "European diplomatic service" bringing officials from the Commission, the Council and Member States together. Operational and administrative complications will be considerable.
An election that requires forethought. In his observations at the end of the plenary, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing raised a number of more fundamental issues (see p 7 in our bulletin of 22 January). I'll just quote one of them: the election of a President of the Commission by the European Parliament. Support for this innovation is based on the increased democratic legitimacy that will result from it for the Commission; reservations about it focus on the risk of giving the Commission a "political shade" of the majority group at the EP, which will have elected this President; a majority of two thirds or three fifths of the electorate could be a way of responding to this risk. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing wanders whether the exclusive right of initiative of the Commission could be maintained in these conditions for the following reason: if there is a majority at the EP which chooses the President, which would also involve the opposition and this opposition would be denied any facility of initiative for five years! Is this democratically acceptable? According to Jean-Louis Bourlanges, setting a special majority would aggravate the situation, as the choice of President of the Commission would be subject to horse trading between the groups trying to form a majority and the group that accepts the President of another tendency would want a Vice-President in exchange…and so on. The composition of the Commission would be the result of the overall "do ut des".
These objections do not write off the formula (which has the support of almost all the European Parliament) but requires forethought.
Grounds for astonishment. In his interview in "Le Figaro" on 22 January, the President of the Convention made several very interesting remarks. He even touched on the fundamental aspect that the Franco-German document completely ignored: that of the entry in to force of the Constitutional treaty and the attitude to take to the countries that don't ratify it (he did this by quoting the answer provided in the "Penelope" project). This masterly interview should be reviewed again. But I'll finish up by expressing my astonishment at the fact that neither in the Convention debate, the interview with its President, nor in the comments of which I've heard, did anyone breathe a word about an aspect that is in fact essential: that in regard to the composition of the Commission, France and Germany propose a formula that would get rid of the roots of the very sensitive discussions on the composition and the number of Commissioner. It should be up to the elected President to decide, "taking into account the geographical and demographic balances". Complete silence. Act of forgetfulness? That would be astonishing.