Time for reflection and compromise. It would be absurd for the Convention to run aground on the question of the institutions because its timetable is too tight. The debate has made progress, some of the rough edges have been smoothed over, and compromises are taking shape thanks to concessions, which previously seemed out of reach. But the mid-June deadline set by the Heads of Government could come as a cut-off point. Too many new solutions require analysis and negotiation, and some older ideas have resurfaced with force, as, for example, that of a single president for the European Council and Commission, the subject of a joint amendment by Andrew Duff, Lamberto Dini and Pierre Lequiller suggesting a ten-year time limit (with Michel Barnier insisting on his "evolutionary clause").
Some of the new ideas, I think, will not stand up to analysis but that is not what is important. What is essential is to leave Convention Members time to think. There is no reason to cut-off reflection on 15 June. Last month, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing had stressed that it matters little whether the text is presented in June or September, as the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) will not be launched until October at the very earliest, and the Convention will be able to continue working in July and August. We know that the European Council's refusal to grant extra reflection time caused VGE considerable annoyance as he considers only the quality of work and the validity of the result count. During his press conference last Friday, VGE insisted on several occasions on the need to keep on working, saying that one idea "deserves reflection", another "has not been gone into in sufficient depth", and yet another requires "research", etc.
Who's afraid of Convention success? Given what is at stake, how can one justify this haste and the refusal of a banal measure like granting a few more weeks in which to reflect? As I said at the end of last week, I suspect some Heads of Government are worried about the way in which the Convention is moving forward. From their point of view, it would be much better for the Convention not to present a complete and consensual project but rather alternative texts, simply suggesting ideas or solutions … Choices would then naturally be up to the final IGC, which would deliberate by unanimity and necessarily place its ambitions at the level of the less ambitious countries, as proved by the two earlier IGCs. It is therefore urgent for them to put a stop to any work that could become too productive.
Two elements help to strengthen this impression. The first is the vigour of the offensive by Eurosceptics -. sorry, I should say Euro-realists (as they prefer to be called) - against the draft constitutional treaty as it is shaping up (see our bulletin of 17 May, p.6). The second element is the way the British popular press has railed against - there being no other word for it - the work of the Convention. According to The Daily Mail, the British daily with the largest circulation, the draft constitution concocted in Brussels will destroy Great Britain's independence and even its identity. It states: "Great Britain as we know it will cease to exist". Speaking of this newspaper, Convention Member Olivier Duhamel spoke of its utter misunderstanding, and its "hateful hammering of Europe", of chauvinist fever. If the opponents to a successful Convention go from arguments and reasoning to invectives and insults, it means that they believe the situation is serious.
Lamassoure and Duhamel give warning. For the time being, nothing has been definitely acquired. Faced with the danger of the deadline that would clip the wings of the Convention, two leading Convention Members have issued further warnings. Alain Lamassoure considers each institution is able to reform itself. The natural tendency of the institutions is to defend or enlarge their own prerogatives, and, to achieve this, they would be willing to accept demands made by others. One must go from defence of one's own interests to the logic of general balance. Olivier Duhamel, for his part, denounced the tendency that everyone has of over-estimating the importance of one's own positions (see p.8 of this bulletin). Everyone believes that, if the neighbour's position is affirmed, it will be a disaster for Europe. He considers one should look at all this in a more relative light. A stable European Council president is acceptable if his powers are well-defined. An enlarged European Commission can work if it has a hierarchy within it. "Whatever the final choice, nothing is catastrophic in itself, everything has advantages and inconveniences", he said. The only real disaster would be to come to nothing as what has been acquired so far is already "infinitely better than Amsterdam or Nice. It would be absurd to lose everything because no agreement can be reached on what still separates us. Let us not over-estimate the effect of the constitutional options under the pretext that we prefer any one of them. Everything will depend on those involved, the circumstances, the way parties evolve and the political life in Europe". Moreover, nothing makes it an obligation to include all the details in the Constitution - we must maintain a certain amount of elasticity and allow the future institutions room for manoeuvre. (F.R.)