The dilemma facing all Europhiles is easily described - in the face of a draft European Constitution that fails to meet the aspirations of the most ambitious but is still a sharp improvement on the current set-up, should one stick to ones heels and be negative or express positive views while criticising the shortcomings?
Official circles, both domestic and European, have tended to go for the second option. Some focus on progress, others on areas of stalemate, both reaching the same conclusions - that the Convention is a significant success in the history of Europe. I know that people I greatly admire have reached the opposite conclusion, believing the errors and shortcomings are such that their overall view is negative. I don't like sitting on the fence and I would say that I share the positive view. Despite the shortcomings being genuine and the institutional aspects needing more work doing on them, the reasons to be cheerful are too great, in my opinion, to not win the day. This conclusion is backed up by consideration of the situation we would have been in if the Convention had failed.
Positive on the whole. At the Convention's last sitting last Friday, the representatives of all sides gave their views, even groups which had been liberal in their criticisms of Chairman Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and the Praesidium in general, and even groups which had not got what they wanted in areas they saw as crucial. Yet overall the draft was welcomed, the satisfaction could be felt in the room. The two spokespersons for MEPs and MPs made statements which are not made lightly, saying the Convention's Europe is more democratic, more transparent and more efficient than versions of Europe following the preceding Intergovernmental Conferences. In the view of government representatives, the outcome is positive for European citizens, whose main concerns were taken into account - Europe which is above all a market at the moment will become an “area for citizens”. Several speakers highlighted the success of the Convention as a body, without whose operating mode various objectives that had been expected for years would not have been achieved. The big political groupings also spoke favourably of the results, particularly the spokesperson for the Socialists, who said it marked success of the values we believed in (and the final demise of Europe being split in two).
In assessing the overall outcome, we mustn't forget the difficult moments the Convention went through. The idea of “options” (disastrous because it would have given governments a valid reason to relaunch the debate) seemed unavoidable at one point but it was averted. Various countries' refusal to review the institutional side of the Nice Treaty was about to cause a crisis, several commentators talked of “the Convention at a standstill” but the crisis was overcome. As a Convention Member who was once Vice-President of the European Commission, Henning Christophersen, put it, the Europe of the future will be better than Europe of the past.
Looking to the future. Over and above these general evaluations (see the report in our bulletin of 14 June, pp 3 to 7), I would add two other interventions that dip their toes into the future. The first was on the UK's future in Europe. Speaking on behalf of the Liberals, Andrew Duff said he was certain the outcome of the Convention would enable ever more UK citizens to dump their prejudices and for the UK to become a trustworthy partner. He was warmly applauded. The second intervention was on the upcoming Italian Presidency of the EU. After saying that the Convention's text would enable Europe to become a “political protagonist” in the world and for Europe to become “transparent” and be understood by citizens, Italy's deputy prime minister Gianfranco Fini, said that the spirit of the Convention should pervade the Intergovernmental Conference and that Italy would not allow the spirit to evaporate.
Plenty of problems persist. This short overview of the reasons to be cheerful expressed by Convention Members should not make us forget that the road is still long and there are plenty of problems ahead. Olivier Duhamel urged colleagues to keep on their guard because others would try and undo what they had done. Some of the remaining obstacles were clearly mentioned in the debate. On behalf of the eurosceptics (or the eurorealists as they prefer to be known), Jens-Peter Bonde said the current draft turned the EU into a federation and the great loser would be the citizen since there would be a European government that citizens could neither elect nor recall. He said his group would submit a “minority report” giving its vision of Europe and European democracy, insisting that citizens be consulted since it is for them to decide on the type of Europe they would like.
Question marks over the Commission. The true obstacles are not Bonde or the other "eurorealists" (too much of a minority current to block consensus). The real problem, I think, are questions marks elsewhere. The Spanish foreign minister Ana de Palacio briefly but clearly alluded to a basic reservation in Spain about the institutional aspects, while the European Commission representatives Michel Barnier and Antonio Vitorino, issued a statement listing first of all the eight crucial areas of progress made by the Convention, but going on to list four areas where the “great desirable ambition was not achieved". The Commission is calling for a) further extension of QMV beyond what is already planned; b) more detailed measures on eurozone economic governance; c) changes to various unsatisfactory areas of institutional reform; and d) a "review clause" whereby certain articles of the Constitution can be changed without needing to be ratified by Member States.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said that the eurozone economic governance rules could be further improved, as could various other aspects of EU policies to adjust the third part of the Constitution to match the principles set out in the first part; but the latter will not be discussed again in the two additional plenaries in July. It follows that if the Commission seeks amendments to the current draft, it will have to do so at the ICG (Intergovernmental Conference). It made this clear in the above-mentioned statement, it wants the four points outlined to be reassessed at the IGC and will be making specific proposals to "adjust the EU's policies to the challenge of enlargement”. In this changeable situation the institutional aspect stands out because alongside the Commission's dissatisfaction is the above-mentioned dissatisfaction of Spain and also numerous other countries that are challenging in practice automatically going over in 2009 to double majority voting for decision-making on the Council.
Ana de Palacio sets out Spain's position. Given the guiding role played by Spain in this affair, I asked the Spanish foreign minister (who is also the Spanish prime minister's representative on the Convention) Ana de Palacio, to clarify Spain's position. She told me (unofficial translation): “The IGC must not renegotiate the fundamental acquis of the Convention, in other words those concerning citizens first and foremost regarding security, combatting terrorism, various social issues, etc. But the institutional part of the draft clearly has to be improved. Spain did not ask its position on the issue to be included in the draft because it opposes a multiple-option text: the Convention has to send a clear and positive message. But the chapter on the institutions was drawn up in haste and sufficient thought has not gone into it (Spain had called for a working group to be set up, but this was not done). At the Praesidium, Spain opted for solidarity to avoid a split between the governmental component and the other components. But reflection is needed now. The legislative mechanism has to reflect the fact that the EU is a Union of Nation States and citizens - legislative power being shared by Parliament and the Council, one of the two legislators must essentially represent citizens and the other represent states. If demographic weight is a determining factor for both, balance will be destroyed. Germany will have more weight than the others at the Parliament, that is fair and straightforward; but on the Council the situation has to be re-examined since according to the current draft three big countries suffice (as long as Germany is one of them) to form a blocking minority."
Ana de Palacio denied that these concerns are connected with the upcoming negotiations over the EU's new Financial Perspectives, saying "The financial issue is sensitive and important but does not determine the Spanish position. To prove this, I renounced the measure that would have extended to 2013 the Nice measures on the Council voting mechanism. In any case, from 2009 onwards Spain will most probably be a net contributor. Our is a matter of principle - the existence of hegemonic structures must be ruled out for Europe in the future".
The composition of the Commission. Another area of controversy is the composition of the Commission. As soon as one looks at the detail of the option selected by the Convention one sees it is ambiguous about “egalitarian rotation” of Commissioners. This may be seductive wording at first sight, but it does not really resolve the questions (highly complex, it must be admitted) raised by the Commission's operations and composition. The Commission has, moreover, added its own concerns about the issue of a more permanent President of the European Council. In reality, it's the entire institutional part of the Constitution that will be back on the negotiating table at the IGC. (F.R.)