The conflict between small and large countries of the European Union is largely unjustified and illusory - it is more a construction of the mind than a real conflict of interests. But it is the main reason behind the risk that the Convention may not manage to define a consensual reform of the institutions of the EU (see this column of 30 April). In fact, the experience of half a century of existence of the Community institutions has proved that divergence between he views of Member States are never decided by the size of the countries, the "blocking minorities" that are formed when these differences arise never take the form of all the big countries on one side and all the small on the other - they are always mixed. I am not saying that institutional measures have no influence on the respective weight of countries in EU decisions; it is clear that they do, but "block against block" confrontations do not exist in practice in Community life.
What Benelux doesn't seem to understand. I am not sure that in this quarrel the "small countries" (Luxembourg in particular which has become the spokesperson) have chosen the most appropriate tactic for defending their legitimate interests. Since the launch of the first Community (the ECSC) the contribution of the Benelux countries (they were the original "small countries") to the European project has been of the highest order; each time that new projects were considered, the three Benelux countries were present; they have always agreed to be net contributors to the budget and they have often played the role of mediator between the interests of the big countries. This has been recognised; the big countries have never formed a coalition to impose measures contrary to the small countries' interests and small country citizens have had great access to the highest European posts. But they don't seem to understand that at the moment the simultaneous (almost) arrival of twelve small or medium-sized countries imposes come institutional changes. The imbalance in the figures has been spectacularly accentuated - the small and medium countries will be in a large majority in the enlarged EU. To take the most obvious example, the European Commission. For the moment a certain balance is respected since ten Commissioners have the nationality of the five big Member States and ten the nationality of the ten smaller states. This balance was turned upside down by the Nice Treaty: nineteen Commissioners will have the nationality of the small countries and six the nationality of the big countries (which account for almost 80% of the population of the enlarged Europe). It is true that the Commissioners do not represent their own country, but in that case even the idea of one Commissioner per country shouldn't be raised.
Understanding the sensibility of the new members. I believe that in the sensitive and difficult debate that has been launched, the Benelux countries could have played a moderating role as is their wont, rather than trying to set up a block with the newly acceding countries. One has to understand the latter, for half a century they were forced to belong to an authoritarian block, with attempts to secede being suppressed with the arrival of foreign tanks in their capitals. They had to fight for their freedom. They are aware, of course, that belonging to the EU is not connected with this painful past, but they remain particularly sensitive about the respect of their autonomy and their full participation in the EU institutions. Even Jacques Delors, following contact with the political authorities of these countries, admitted that during a transition period each Member States would have to have a Commissioner of their nationality on the European Commission. In an interview with Agence Europe (see bulletin of 29 April, pp ¾) he said: "Experience shows that, for the large majority of countries, the European Commissioner is the person who reassures, who guarantees that the situation of his/her country of origin is taken into consideration in Brussels, and, conversely, is the person who can explain to the government of his nationality all he ins and outs of each dossier". The idea of one Commissioner per country must be transitional, however, since "the day will come when the spirit of European integration will have penetrated all countries and when it will be possible to contemplate a Commission reduced in size".
Meanwhile, the functioning of the Commission should be reviewed and Delors cited Romano Prodi's initiative to strengthen the powers of the President and the Vice-Presidents. The formula put forward by the Convention Praesidium is more radical - a European Commission of no more than 16 members (including the future European Foreign Affairs Minister, Vice-President with a special status) along with "delegate Commissioners" appointed by the President. The small countries reject this, but let us not forget that the next Commission will be appointed before the new Constitution comes into force. It will therefore be composed according to the rules of the Nice Treaty, with one Commissioner per nationality.
Need for reform. The second great divergence between large and small countries concerns the idea put forward by France and Germany for a long-term full-time President of the European Council, an idea supported by Spain and the UK but rejected by the small countries. There are valid reasons for improving the functioning of the European Council, giving its President greater stability and duration. But small countries have restricted themselves to calling for the six-monthly rotation to be kept! It seems to me that the reasonable and constructive position would have been to be open, recognising the need for reforming the functioning of both the Commission and the Presidency of the European Council. The pure and simple rejection of the suggestions of the "big" countries, without accepting that a problem exists and without giving any indication of wanting to discuss it, has lead to the situation described by Jacques Delors as countries remaining stubbornly opposed to one another, which cannot lead to anything constructive. It is the intransigents that remain isolated because the moment of "people of good will" has come.
Guy Verhofstadt's openness. I read in a Belgian newspaper that the former Vice-President of the Commission Etienne Davignon organised a dinner last week between the Chairman of the Convention Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (accompanied by Vice-Chair Jean-Luc Dehaene) and the Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt (accompanied by foreign minister Louis Michel). The newspaper reported that the Belgian prime minister said after the dinner that he had "opened doors" for a permanent Presidency of the European Council, explaining that what Belgium refused to accept was the "double structure of an intergovernmental pillar with a President, an entire structure and democratic justification via the Congress, and a Community pillar with the President of the Commission at the top, justified by the European Parliament. It is well known that the intergovernmental structure (in other words the office of the European Council initially foreseen by VGE) has now disappeared. Satisfied, or almost, in this connection, Verhofstadt is reported to have requested an additional fine-tuning - for the Commission to chair the General Affairs Council.
As we see, compromises are being worked on, given that it is in the Convention that they must come together. There too good will is at work. We have already reported o the initiative by Inigo Mendez de Vigo in favour of a single position of the sixteen MEPs who are members of the Convention, along with the approach of the three Convention Members representing the Benelux governments, announcing "alternative institutional proposals" (the three Members are the foreign ministers Louis Michel and Gijs de Vries and the former Commission President Jacques Santer).
Misunderstanding not yet defused. Was I wrong on Wednesday to express a level of scepticism about the Convention defining a consensual institutional reform programme? Let us not go too fast. The contested ideas of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing seems to have played a role a provocateur, putting pressure on Convention Members by stimulating figures who are above the crowd, like Jacques Delors, to state their positions. Compromises are starting to be formed. But the misunderstanding between large and small countries has not been defused. Jacques Delors highlighted that when divisions become a "quarrel of prestige" at the level of big ideas, there is no solution, "small countries" become attached to the idea of equality of all countries, while "big countries" highlight demographic and economic realities. In the above-mentioned interview with Agence Europe, Jacques Delors noted that it is not just a matter of population size but also of material capacities; big countries, even if there are only five of them, fund the majority of the EU budget in absolute figures, and this will be even more the case after enlargement because the new Member States will logically have to be "net beneficiaries" according to the most basic solidarity. But we cannot claim that countries which bear the majority of the burden should not have a reasonable weight in management and decision-making. The same goes for diplomacy and, even more so, the military. There is no solution if one argues the big ideas; what is needed is innovation giving firm guarantees to both sides, like "double majority" voting for Council decisions. Institutional balance needs the Community method, particularly a strong and balanced Commission able to represent and assert European common interests. It is the big countries which have to budge here, since several heads of state give the impression of not really understanding the significance of the Commission's role and the extent to which balance in the "institutional triangle" (Parliament, Council and Commission) is vital for Europe.
Is it possible to unravel all these knots in a few weeks? Time will tell. Either way, if a solution to the issue of the small countries is found with reasonable ideas based on the Community method, the problem of the UK will be posed, which in my view still exists although it seems to be in hibernation for the moment. I will return to this in full detail.
(F.R.)