It would have been in the interest of all the Convention Members, and generally of those who take an interest in the preparation of Europe's Constitution, to attend the Study Day on the European Union Presidency organised on Tuesday by the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs at the initiative of its Chairman, Giorgio Napolitano. The three guest speakers (Peter Sutherland, Philippe de Schoutheete and Yves Mény, President of the European University Institute of Florence), as well as the many parliamentarians who took part in the debate, gave details of the various solutions that are being discussed at the Convention on the two most controversial institutional issues: the creation of a stable full-time European Council president and the method for designating the president of the European Commission. The result could have been a rainbow of different solutions, which would not have added anything to the debate already in progress. And yet we noted that opinions were broadly speaking convergent, burying not only the solution of two "presidents of Europe" but also that of the election of the Commission president by the European Parliament.
Three speakers agree. Today I shall focus on the first point, leaving for tomorrow that on which the debate was more mitigated. The idea of two parallel Presidents, one from the Commission and the other from the European Council, both of long duration and full time, was flattened by all three guest speakers. Peter Sutherland found it a "very bad idea" as the role and function of the president of the European Council are uncertain. There is sympathy for the idea of a single president for both the Commission and for the European Council, but Mr Sutherland does not believe it will "take off" as the president of the Commission must sometimes oppose the Council and specific national interests in order to support the common interest. Both roles are therefore, in his opinion, incompatible.
Philippe de Schouteete considers both presidents according to the modalities proposed by the joint Franco-German document would be "in permanent structural conflict". The idea of giving the president of the European Council "symbolic value" is not a solution. To those who cite the example of the presidents of Germany and Italy (who do not have executive powers), he objected that the latter do not preside the governments of their countries (whereas the president of the European Council would preside the EU Summits). The solution should lie, he believes, in reform of the General Affairs Council, which would not be necessarily composed of Foreign Ministers and which would have the essential task of preparing Summits and would be presided by the new "European Foreign Minister" resulting from the merger of powers held currently by Mr Solana and Mr Patten. If one considers it to be truly necessary to have a personality who gives a lasting expression of the "face of Europe", one could simply extend the duration of the rotating European Council Presidency held by a Prime Minister in office. The main thing is not the presidency but the "re-founding" of the European Council, in order to give it the role of leadership and in order to prevent (through the filter of the General Affairs Council) that points not having their rightful place at Summit level reach the Summit.
Yves Mény fully shared the criticism of the long-term, full-time dual presidency formula, and suggested that the European Council should have a "joint presidency with five presidents" who would honour the balance between the various political trends, the large and small countries, and the North and South of Europe.
Further criticism. MEPs added a number of further critical remarks. The dual presidency has sometimes been justified by the need to "personalise" Europe, to give it a face, but "our institutional structure cannot depend on a snub from Henry Kissinger", Giorgio Napolitano remarked, referring to the famous question concerning Europe's phone number. Jo Leinen noted that President Bush knows full well who to phone if it is in his interest (he managed to phone Mr Rasmussen when he wanted the EU to set a date for Turkey's membership to the EU …) and Pervenche Berès stressed that, at any rate, nothing will prevent Mr Bush from phoning the Heads of Government of his choice, just as the latter phone him when the occasion calls for it. Jean-Louis Bourlanges suggested an alternative solution to that proposed by Mr Mény: a three-headed presidency lasting 18 months, sufficient for a real "European" programme (instead of three "national" programmes, as is the case today).
President Napolitano concluded on this point by noting the unanimous objection to two full-time, long-term presidents, saying that a "collective presidency" could be an alternative solution.
I shall report on the more mitigated debate tomorrow concerning the profile and the composition of the Commission and the way its president should be elected.
(F.R.)