If the Convention agrees to give up the idea of institutional reform that has been taking root over the past year and stick to the institutional regime of Nice, then we might as well consider it has finished its work and should no longer exist. The major innovation that the Convention represents in the history of Europe lies in the fact that, for the very first time, a Treaty is not being prepared by intergovernmental negotiations but by a body that brings together national parliamentarians, Euro-MPs, representatives of the European Commission and representatives of the governments. This new formula was unanimously decided by the Heads of State and Government and was welcomed by all as progress on the road to democracy and transparency.
Now, part of one of the four Convention components (that made up of government representatives) has taken position against institutional reform - which it is entitled to do. But, if one allows that component alone to impose its preferences upon the others, then the very essence of the Convention is annihilated. If it is the governments that decide (when, in principle, the three other components have taken a stance in favour of the reform), then it is quite simply a return to the traditional intergovernmental Conference and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing might as well announce the Convention's work is at an end. And we must not forget that the Laeken declaration which created the Convention states that the countries applying for accession should take part in deliberations "without, however, preventing consensus between Member States". Which brings to six the number of "deliberating" governments that reject institutional reform.
On the substance of the problem, the Chairman of the Convention and the President of the European Commission were for once in perfect agreement. Valéry Giscard said: "If the Convention exists, it is in order to reform Nice". Romano Prodi took up: "We wanted the Convention precisely because we were not pleased with Nice". (F.R.)