Radical disagreements from Peter Hain. The Convention debate on the draft of the initial European Constitution Articles elaborated by the Presidium (see our bulletin on 7 February pp 5 and 6) has confirmed the existence of a fundamental disagreement between the United Kingdom and the majority of other Member States. Criticism made by the British government has gone well beyond the disapproval of one or other formation, or of one word or another. This is what Peter Hain has expressed in the disagreement of his country about the very direction of the draft. This is indeed how the British press has interpreted his intervention too. (1).
The Presidium had sacrificed a sentence which figured in the Treaty of Rome of 1957, which the British government had previously vigorously attacked, namely, that of the aim of a "Union that is unceasingly closer between the European peoples" (replaced by "the will of the peoples and countries to build their common future". This concession was not enough to reassure the British, just as the assertion shared by all and inscribed into Article 1, whereby, "the Union respects that national identify of its Member States". The provision according to which the Union, "based on the federal method manages certain common competencies" is not accepted by London, as well as several other concepts retained by the Presidium, such as the idea that the Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes an "integral part" of the Constitution, allocating the Union with a "competency" for defining and implementing common foreign and security policy (including the gradual definition of a European defence policy); the facility for the Union to coordinate national economic policies. On some of these terms, compromise is possible, together with a little imagination and determination. But taking all the United Kingdom's objections into account would involve a radical reduction of the Convention's ambitions. Peter Hain considers that the Presidium document does not accurately reflect the content of the debates that occurred during the year or the positions of the Members. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing responded that the Presidium was founded on the conclusions of the Convention's work groups.
Right of veto remains. It is true that the official British position is in part tactical and that other British Convention Members have been more flexible (Gisela Stewart) or decidedly in favour of the Presidium draft (Andrew Duff). But this is not at all the case of David Heathcoat-Amory (see our bulletin of 8 February p 5) and is should definitely not be forgotten that the final decision on the text of the Constitution will be decided at the IGC (Intergovernmental Conference), by unanimity. In other words, the United Kingdom, like all the other Member States has a right of veto. The models contained within the "Penelope" documents aiming to prevent a "no" vote of a single country overturning the whole project will only apply (if they are maintained) in the third phase, that of ratification by Member States.
Those who are beginning to look for solutions involving exchanges. It therefore appears more crucial to have solutions involving exchanges available. If consensus is to be obtained and the Convention has to reduce its objectives, an initiative from countries, which seek to preserve their high ambitions, ought to swiftly win out. This is an idea that is beginning to take root, either by way of the "enhanced cooperation" mechanism or through methods that are quite clearly revolutionary. Thus, the two European Commissioners, Pascal Lamy and Günter Verheugen have called on France and Germany to take the initiative and unite their countries, as well as inviting other countries to join with them in the initiative. More pragmatically, Pierre Lequiller (who represents the national French Assembly at the Convention) has outlines a framework of criteria to respect for diplomacy and defence, which is similar to that leading up to the single currency, for example: a mutual defence commitment; 2% minimum of GDP for military affairs; the facility for sending soldiers to the front; participation in a European weapons agency.
These projects and those that follow deserve to be looked at: if the facts lead to the taking into account of the hypothesis of a "two-speed Europe", with different objectives and ambitions (see this section yesterday), it should be faced up to. (F.R.)
----------------
(1) Some titles: "UK objects to new federal blueprint for Europe, "Britain demands changes to federal EU draft", "The superstate is here", "Brussels elite accused over "federalist coup'"