The call that I attempted to make on 21 May for better reciprocal cooperation between Member States and the different tendencies in the Convention was not based on a vague wish for greater understanding. It responded to the specific worries resulting from developments, which at the same time prove; b) the situation in the United Kingdom has become such that any agreement on a consensus text appears to be practically impossible; c) some of the positions of other countries are also becoming more distant from the needs for obtaining consensus. Here are some of the essential elements in these negative developments.
A. The press and the "Euro-Sceptics went on the rampage in the United Kingdom and the government was unable to react other than by minimising the goals and results of the Convention. The "Sun" and the "Daily Mail", two British newspapers with a massive circulation (six million copies a day) presented the draft European constitutional treaty as an attempt to conquer the British Isles and create a United States of Europe. The British nation would be destroyed and officials from Brussels would run the way of life, the economy and the borders of the country. Tony Blair is accused of subsequently surrendering "a thousand years of British sovereignty". The "Sun" has drawn up a list of the battles waged against continental invasions (1588 we beat the Spanish, 1805 we beat the French; 1940 we beat the Germans) and to conclude, "2003, Blair hands over Great Britain to Europe". The more sober "Daily Telegraph", delivers a similar message but employing a style of language that is less wild. In the "Daily Mail", the hate-filled criticism of the "Brussels Project" is accompanied by personal attacks on Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and his private life.
According to the different observers, public opinion is very marked by this verbal insanity, partly out of understandable reasons (which I tried to elucidate upon in this section on 21 May) and the Euro-sceptic politicians (mainly conservatives) who have not hesitated to attack the government with their similar arguments, to the point of putting Tony Blair and his Ministers on the defensive. Instead of explaining and defending their pro-European convictions, made in the interest of the country, they strive to minimise the significance of the Convention and the Constitutional Treaty. The tone had already been given in the written interventions of the European Minister of Affairs, Denis Macshane, whose papers have been published in "Le Monde since last January and in the "Financial Times" since the end of April, for a Europe lacking in political ambition and a Convention that restricts itself to proposing practical measures that are acceptable to all governments (see this section on 30 January and 8 May). The British government representative at the Convention, Peter Hain, while describing outpourings of the popular press as, "lurid fantasy", defended this position, explaining that: a) the draft being prepared would be limited to creating order in the current treaties, three quarters of which would stay as they are; b) the future President of the European Council, elected by Prime Ministers, will define the future strategic direction of the Union; c) in any case, every country would keep its conclusive right to veto at the IGC. Despite these views, reassuring from an internal stance, Peter Hain was seen to be to conciliating and is going to be replaced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jack Straw, as the British government's representative at the Convention.
In this situation, it is not surprising that Tony Blair explained many restrictive conditions to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, in order for the draft Constitution be acceptable to his country, including restrictions to the Commission's power and the creation of the long term full-time President of the European Council. (See EUROPE 21 May p 5).
B. Spain refuses "double majority" for Council debates and calls for institutional agreements of Nice to be maintained. Even if the President of the Convention considers that the double majority rule has largely been agreed (the majority of countries representing 60% of the Union's population) to at the Council, in reality, the Spanish government is largely opposed to it. Its representative at the Convention (and Member of the Presidium), the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ana Palacio, indicated in writing that her country would not agree to the Convention reopening the debate on voting methods at the Council because it refused to allow the Nice agreements to be amended. Spanish Convention Deputy Member, Alfonso Dastis, reaffirmed in plenary session that if the Convention reopened discussions on this subject, there would not be any agreement. The United Kingdom has indirectly supported the Spanish position, saying that it was "satisfied" with the agreements of Nice and that the small countries (current members and candidates, as well as several other Convention Members), had expressed the same opinion.
The reason for the Spanish position is clear: the compromises of Nice recognise that in a 27 country Union Spain would weigh quite strongly compared to what would have resulted from "double majority". The Treaty of Nice makes provisions for Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy to have 29 votes each at the Council (9.03% of the total) with Spain having 27 votes (8.41% of the total).Spain would have the opportunity of blocking, together with several small or medium countries. This option was sought by the "four big countries" and is quite significant: it will quite markedly decline if the "demographic weight" becomes a determining factor. Experts worked out that if Germany had 17% of the total, those of France, the United Kingdom and Italy would be around 12% each and that of Spain, around 8.2%. it would then become much more difficult to block a decision made by the four large countries.
It is understandable that Spain is not bowled over by an innovation that would reduce its weight at the Council, may others would do likewise. But the Spanish position is based on a theoretical hypothesis, that of a "common front" of four of the larger countries in coalition against Spain's interests. It's completely unrealistic to imagine a battle between small and large counties (Spain in this case with the large counties and Poland), in a common front of the six large countries against the 21 small and medium countries or vice versa. No such scenario has occurred in half a century of European history! Most political leaders and observers consider that the "double majority" represents important progress towards an awareness of the double nature of the EU: Union of States and Union of Peoples. It also considerably simplifies to the relationship between the particularly fussy calculations, which we got to know at Nice (given that the percentage of necessary population, on the side of the majority of countries, for approving a decision could still be discussed). It would therefore be a shame to give it up. The Spanish stance and the wariness of others is indicative of the current lack of trust between Member States.
Spain, without having to ruse its veto (which would be difficult) could demand that the Convention recognised that there was no consensus on "double majority" and request from Heads of government (two or more), alternative formulas. This would aggravate the situation described, because as we know, in the IGCs the veto could be used.
C. Several governments have explicitly requested that the Convention leaves certain aspects of the Constitution pending. A certain number of States consider that at the Convention, as well as at the General Affairs Council on Monday (see our bulletin of 20 May p 6), consensus "should not be forced" and that it is better that the Convention presents the options on the controversial issues. This view was expressed most notably by the delegations from the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria and Ireland and it appears that the United Kingdom will approve it (as it will not obtain, we hope, everything that it is seeking, such as the watering down of the draft Constitution and could come out with alternative formulas) and Spain, if it is not please with maintaining the institutional compromise of Nice (see the previous point). It would therefore not be wrong to raise tea alarm about the danger of several governments which are pleased with the current situation and prefer the "options" with a consensual project that the IGC would subsequently find a difficult to radically change (see this section on 17 May). Everything would be much simpler if the Convention presents options, some of which the governments could choose and who would be obliged by the unanimity rule to line up with the position of lowest common denominator!
D. Considerable number of solutions and provisions still have to be developed
Despite the welcome return of a sprit of compromise and efforts of mediation developed recently be several Convention Members, several hypotheses have still not been developed and require debates that with deadlines and current proceedings, appear problematic. There are many examples: the rejection by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and by some of the current small Member States for a reduced Commission completed by Deputy Commissioners without voting rights; the United Kingdom's refusal to agree to a "legislative Council", the masterpiece of Council reform and so on. Lack of time ( and lack of an "Institutions" workgroup or "conclave" bringing Convention Members to accept compromise, behind "closed doors" if needs be, these divergences lead to the same conclusion: the Convention will not attain a consensual draft but should be based on the formula of options and alternative solutions, in the case of failure and a return to the kind of classic ICG (inefficient and unavoidably disappointing). Unless..
Unless VGE creates lightening. If he accepts that obtaining a draft that has consensus, due to the different degrees of ambition, the President could conclude the need for creating both (to take up the formula that he himself had invented) a "European Area" and a "European Power" or the need for "differentiation" as called for by Jacques Delors and indications as to how this could be reached.
(F.R.)