Questions by Ben Fayot. I now regret that the real debate at the Convention on institutional reform has begun too late. For many months, the contending parties confronted each other on irreconcilable positions: small countries against large countries, Community method against the intergovernmental method, long term full time President of Europe or sixth monthly rotation, a Commissioner per country as opposed to a reduced Commission etc. And now that time is short, a multitude of compromise efforts are coming to the fore: Benelux has once again found (expressing itself with a single voice, that of Jacques Santer) its traditional mediating role, Alain Lamassoure develops effective and imaginative formulas, of which we are already aware, the President of the Council is not excluding the possibility of a short prolongation of the Convention to put the finishing touches to the part on "Union policies", the European Commission creates an opening for the creation of a "Chairman" of the European Council etc.
Why didn't all these attempts to find likely compromises for consensus begin earlier? Convention Member, Ben Fayot, has an idea: they would have needed to create a work group for institutional aspects and the Convention, in a way that they did with positive results achieved elsewhere. "The work groups' method, in other areas, which were just as sensitive as those in the institutional dossier, produced positive results, without any significant media stunts but by patient work (largely ignored by the media) in which Convention Members were able to take part on an equal basis". This formula would have allowed the groundwork to be done around preconceived and untenable positions and preparation for any contradictions. Why was this not followed? It's not me one should be asking but the Convention Members themselves. If June and July were available, as VGE had wished…
Broadening the debate: At the same time as the compromise attempts and mediation efforts, we see a whole array of initiatives to provide a full backup to their positions. The challenge launched by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing to Romano Prodi to debate the issue of the Presidency of the European Council in public did not work out as the President of the Convention and the President of the Commission were unable to agree on the means for bringing the debate about. The EPP group at the European Parliament then proposed that VGE be invited to address the EP plenary session on 3 or 4 June in Strasbourg with Romano Prodi for a public discussion with MEPs. In parallel, the Democratic Forum (bringing together Euro-sceptic Convention Members, who prefer to describe themselves as Euro-realists) attempted to convey the message according to which the constitutional treaty currently being discussed would immediately lead to a super state destroying national identities.
Some governments understand the current situation. All this movement and agitation is positive but the question remains, is it too late? The danger in my opinion, is that the tactics of some governments has up till now attempted to prevent the Convention reaching consensus on a draft for the constitutional treaty, to which it would then be difficult to oppose. They are avoiding any significant dispute and are making some concessions by not seeking any break with the Presidium draft but they still harbour enough reservations to make consensus impossible. At the same time they have been very rigid at the European Council so that the Convention presents its draft on 20 June. VGE has not concealed his irritation at the refusals (that do not contain any justification) to allow him to prolong the work till September. Is it possible to perfect the compromises that are barely out in the open, by mid-June? the danger is that on certain important aspects, the Convention will not present a text that gains consensus but alternative formulas instead, which would open up all the debates again at the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). Experience proves that in IGCs, ambitious solutions rarely prevail but rather, the most modest and those that receive the unanimity of governments. The most important innovation for preparing the Constitution by national and European politicians and the Union institutions, together with representatives from the governments, in such an open and transparent process, would have failed. Certain governments have never hidden the fact that their only objective is enlargement, this deepening effect for them is only a facultative option, which they even dislike. Following enlargement, this deepening would, form their point of view, be reduced to a few cosmetic modifications and the EU would simply become a trade zone, faceless and lacking ambition.
How can this worst case scenario be avoided? That's up to the Convention Members and pro-European political forces to provide the answer. (F.R.)