Following the action of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing during a Convention plenary session is both comforting and disconcerting. Comforting, because we get the feeling of seeing Europe moving forward: the objective is clear, the Convention is taking shape, the approach is calm and assured, even the time table is being maintained, namely, a complete draft by June "because this is the mandate" (even if all those involved know that the deadline will be revised). Disconcerting, because although the debates create the impression of a great variety of views and divergences, which are sometimes fundamental, the President will be able to draw conclusions from them and keep on course. He is, overall, pleased with the work of the Convention. According to a Convention Member (former European Affairs Minister in his country), the Acquis already correspond to the results of three or four typical ICGs. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing believes that the four demands from Nice have already been answered: legal personality, insertion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, simplification, more extensive role for the national Parliaments. The subsequent programme has been defined. In basing himself on what was declared last week to Convention Members and at the final press conference, the Presidential thinking" can be summed up in five points:
1. Objectives, fundamental rights, citizenship, competencies. VGE was not impressed by the number (more than a thousand) of the amendments submitted to the first 16 Articles of the constitutional treaty by the Presidium. He considered that they were partly identical and that a considerable number of them were "purely editorial". He retained two basic aspects, despite the sometimes divergent opinions expressed in the debate, he believed that a consensus had been gained on them, such as:
a) the adjective, "federal". After having indicated that this adjective does not refer to the Union but at the way it works (the Union "manages certain common competencies on a federal mode") he pointed out that opposition to this adjective was in a small minority and concluded that it should be kept. It will therefore be in the draft.
b) religious values. While recognising that Convention Members expressed themselves "differently", VGE observed that there had been consensus on two essential points: the guarantees of the Amsterdam Treaty on respect of the status of the churches and religious association and communities in Member States, which will be kept; religious traditions and values will be mentioned in the introductory part but not in Article 2 (which lists the values for which non-respect could lead to sanctions or even exclusion). VGE will be proposing a draft (which means he's already got one in mind), which will contain a reference to the Charter of Rights.
During the debates, he already indicated that he agreed with the requests involving the Union's symbols (flag, anthem, Europe national day etc.) and that other improvements ought to be kept (those involving the terminology of "competencies" and relevant lists, together with the request to call the "complementary competencies" defined as "support areas" in the draft. But other amendments do not yet not appear clear, notably those on: citizenship (according to Pervenche Berès, European citizenship could be attributed to nationals from third countries or the stateless who have legally resided in Union territory for 5 years; the environment: its protection and improvement should be mentioned; economic policy and social policies: according to several Convention Members the draft of Article 13 (which only mentions coordination of national economic policies) is weaker than the provisions in the current treaty (which considers economic policies as an "issue of common interest"). Through the common position presented by Ben Fayot, Dominique de Villepin, Hubert Haenel and Robert Badinter (and Emilio Gabaglio on behalf of the unions), Social convention members requested that coordination was extended to social and employment policies.
2. Role of national Parliaments. VGE considers that the two protocols submitted to Convention Members on subsidiarity and the role of national Parliaments takes into account the debates and should therefore be considered as definitive. A particularly sensitive issue, is therefore resolved, that puts an end to the misunderstandings and divergences between the European Parliament and the national Parliaments that has gone on for years. They were the result of a certain mutual distrust: the national Parliaments has the impression that the EP had a tendency to claim more and more powers to the detriment of national competencies and democratic principles and the EP feared the re-nationalisation of Community competencies. The rapprochement has been slow and COSAC came up against quite a lot of problems but the very existence of the Convention allowed for greater mutual understanding. National parliamentarians were successful in coordinating their positions, the EP worked well, the Convention workgroups obtained a reasonable compromise (the document of Mendez de Vigo, criticised by several sides at the outset, turned out to be definitively balanced and imaginative and the new draft protocols resolved the pending and most controversial issues (see our bulletin 1 March, pp 3/4). The Early Warning System will allow each national Parliament the chance to intervene if it believes that a European initiative does not respect the subsidiarity principle. If this initiative is agreed to by a third of national Parliaments, the European Commission will have to re-examine its disputed proposal but its autonomy is safeguarded as it will itself decide whether to revise this proposal or withdraw or maintain it as it is. The Court of Justice could be called on in cases of breaches in the subsidiarity principle, an appeal that could be introduced by Member States at the request of both national and regional parliaments that have the legislative competence. The Committee of the Regions would therefore also appeal to the court of Justice in connection with legislative Acts about which it has been consulted.
This is a considerable result. The plenary session will give its verdict on 17-18 March.
3. Legislative simplification and decision procedure. Articles 24-28, recently proposed by the Presidium, introduce the radical simplification of the Community Acts and legislative procedures, which have been absolutely necessary for a long time. There are no real surprises (the directions were already known at the end of the Amato workgroup's work, which had in its turn taken into account the Bourlangues report conclusions) but what cleaning up there was to do! The majority of legal instruments that make it impossible for the public to understand Community legislation are thrown out, only four binding Acts remain (law, framework law, regulation and decision) and two non-binding Acts (recommendations and opinions). Above all, legislative procedure becomes uniform, with the elimination of the "three pillars" and the distinction (which citizens find mysterious) between Community and inter-governmental competencies. Initiative for introducing Acts will still remain with the Commission. Parliament and the Council are now equal as legislators. The Council will be able to discuss issues openly when legislation is involved (not only at the moment of finally approving a text, explained Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, but throughout the procedure). The EP and the Council will now not have to see their time and efforts dispersed in a myriad of detailed and technical provisions, as the details will be delegated to the Commission, with safeguards that will allow the legislator to regain its powers if needs be.
The plenary will reach a decision on 17-18 March. The provisions that have been mentioned will not cover the three areas, which will be the subject of specific provisions: Common Foreign, and Security Policy (CFSP), European Defence and Security Policy (EDSP), as well as police and justice and criminal matters.
4. Foreign and Defence policies. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing announced that specific policies for CFSP and EDSP) will be presented in May, together with some of the essential elements form his direction (see this section yesterday). He also indicated that he had asked the European Commission to consult the public by way of the "Eurobarometer" survey regarding their support for CFSP and ESDP. Questions on this subject will be posed in surveys for March, April and May.
5. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing maintains its institutional directions. Institutional issues will be tackled in April: the Articles relating to them will be short. The different declarations of VGE indicated that he has remained loyal to his essential options, despite the criticism and reservations on the two following texts:
a) a full-time permanent President for the European Council. During his press conference, VGE asserted that the existence of such a Presidency would have prevented the spectacle of a Europe rive by divisions in the Iraqi saga. On the following day he affirmed (in an interview) that this formula was supported by large current Member States (Germany, France, United Kingdom, Spain and Italy) and by Poland, which represent together, 80% of the enlarged EU population, as well as by a number of other Member States (Denmark, Sweden etc.). Initially, the President will be selected by the European Council itself, followed by a gradual development towards a more democratic system. The elected candidate will be more of a "Chairman" than a "President", with very limited Executive power; he will organised the works of the European Council, ensure continuity, and smooth out national positions. He will need to have substantial experience of the Community institutions and have taken part in the European council over a certain period. Responding to the question of whether he would be available, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, replied "No, thank you". In his opinion, the formula of a single President for the European Council and the Commission would transform the latter into an administrative organ and all political power would go to the European council.
b) a streamlined European Commission. VGE affirmed that if it was not reformed, the European Commission would lose influence. The College should consist of 10-12 personalities who are strong and respected.
VGE is also sticking to his draft for a Congress that would periodically bring together national and European parliamentarians. We already know that on these three points, opposition is both sharp and numerous.
(F.R.)