An formula that's dead and buried? Meeting in Luxembourg, representatives of the seven small and medium countries rejected both the formula of a long-term President of the European Council, as well as the said President being Head of a government in office. This position also indicated that these countries have concluded that this formula should be considered as dead and buried (see our bulletin on 3 April p 5). The reason put forward by of Jean-Claude Juncker, who chaired the meeting, is simple: the Convention decides by consensus (which does not mean unanimity); a proposal that is rejected by seven Member States and by Convention Members from several other Member States or acceding countries, cannot be considered as consensual. Mr Juncker considers that the Convention should not even submit this draft proposal to the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). The four large countries "France, Germany, United Kingdom and Spain) had proposed it, with Italy's support. The President of the Convention stressed on several occasions that the current six monthly rotation system could not be maintained in an enlarged Europe.
If the position of the "Seven" is added to this divergence relating to the European Commission (see this section 5 April), we can understand the worry expressed by the Convention Vice President Jean-Luc Dehaene with regard to the "growing distrust" between large and small countries and the desire of the Presidium to "go beyond this". In the context of the issue of the Presidency, intermediary formulas have already been suggested, based on "Presidential teams" or different solutions relating to the different Council groupings. There is also a "single President" formula for the Commission and European Council, which will mean the birth of a genuine "President of Europe" but certain observers consider that for the moment it is not really compatible with the balance between "the Europe of peoples" and the "European of nations" and would be to the detriment o the latter. It seems to me to be useless to speculate on what could be the final compromise: the Convention will have to deal with this, despite Mr Juncker's opposition. But it appears clear that whatever it is, the Franco-German formula will not obtain the indispensable consensus.
France and Germany want something concrete. At the same time, it is very important that France and Germany more overtly assert their intention to go forward and leave by the wayside those who don't want to follow. The speech of Chancellor Schröder to the Bundestag (see our bulletin 5 April p 7) is both very clear on the need to build a Europe of defence and the importance of British participation. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Josckha Fischer, interviewed in "Le Monde" about the risk of the Iraqi crisis undermining the Convention's work on defence issues, reinforced his declaration made at Handesblatt, "In this case, answers will not be provided from within the framework of the Union institutions". It will be necessary to explore other channels and organise outside of the EU treaties. Everyone is aware of that". (The journal would like to point out that this text was "revised and amended by the Minister"). In France, François Bayrou declared, "It will be necessary for a group of countries, those of the Euro zone, to agree to building a federal entity at the heart of an intergovernmental Europe. With 25 we'll only be dealing with the economy". Mr Bayrou considers that this "construction" could see the light from with the framework of the treaty.
It will be necessary to wait to the Defence Summit of 29 April for seeing more clearly. But these warnings should not be taken lightly. Italy's attempt to transform this Summit to four out of a European Council of Fifteen failed, with France and Germany not agreeing to the three "cosmetic" measures: a) confirmation that the meeting would be open to other Member States; b) invitation to the President of the European Council to attend (the summit) as an observer; c) agreement to an EU Council focusing on defence but after their summit (2 May). The reason appears obvious: the four (France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg) do not want a meeting prepared by the current Troika (Greece, Italy, Javier Solana) and which could become a forum for rhetorical declarations and affirmations of principles. They intend to propose a draft that is much more concrete in its objectives (including the "collective defence clause") and in the industrial and technological aspect, an ambitious project that could not gain the agreement of the Fifteen and which would need looking at in the context of the European Council).
Three options. Once the main guidelines of the draft are defined three options are theoretically possible: a) a unanimous agreement (which could be excluded, considering the work that has already taken place at the Convention); b) strengthened cooperation or an avant-guard in the EU; c) a non-treaty formula. Joschka Fischer, as we have seen, does not exclude the third possibility. The hour of reckoning approaches. (F.R.)