Hardly a reassuring prospect. The celebrations won't last for long. The end of the Convention matched the scale of the challenge, both in its final deliberations (with the firm desire to save the Constitution at the price of the various tendencies making concessions) and the final declarations; Convention Members had understood the significance and impact of the event, several of them being able to talk about this in an appropriate manner. Several days later, at the Thessalonica Summit, everything started off well. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing presented the draft with fitting nobility and simplicity: the text could be passed round in schools because all Europe's schoolchildren would understand it (and understand the ambitions of the exercise better in this way than by reading various comments or the picture on the front page of The Economist). The Greek Presidency and some heads of state displayed elevated visions matching the fact that for the first time in its thousand years of existence, Europe has a draft common Constitution; some heads of state are prepared to agree to the current draft with virtually no amendments.
Other heads of state preferred to dive headfirst into the atmosphere of the upcoming IGC (Intergovernmental Conference). And this is hardly a reassuring prospect. People who closely followed the previous IGC (in Nice) know that if the same spirit persists, we may witness often vicious horsetrading of national interests and a bitter power struggle between countries and between institutions. Of the attitudes which have been expressed to date, those of Spain and Poland raise the greatest concern with their calls for more detailed references to religion and God (seemingly unaware at first sight of the extent and success with which this was considered and analysed by the Convention) and, most of all, calling for the Nice institutional balance to be maintained. Outlining her country's views to us (see this column of 17 June, p.4), the Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio said greater reflection was needed for institutional issues (denying any link between this demand and the upcoming financial negotiations, pointing out that Spain would soon be a “net contributor” to the EU budget). This is reasonable, but it is not the same as keeping the Nice institutional arrangement in the Constitution! The system chosen by the Convention ("double majority" of countries and population) is a step in the right direction, towards greater fairness, clarity and simplicity, and was supported by all the institutions and virtually all Member States. The ins and outs and percentages can be discussed but not the principle. Asked about this, Romano Prodi said: "the Convention should work for the future, in transparency; it wasn't to take account of the outcome of secret confabulations and compromises."
Two criteria to be respected. Spain and Poland's attitude is clearly not the only attack on the outcome of the Convention, far from it; the error made by these two countries was perhaps simply to have spoken out and spoken more bluntly than other countries. The current draft Constitution is not untouchable. I myself think the formula suggested for the composition of the European Commission is not viable and will have to be revised (see this column of 20 June), although I understand the arguments in favour of "one Commissioner of each nationality", which I think will be formally agreed, while making great changes to how the College operates. Go ahead with discussing the current draft, therefore, while respecting two criteria:
- not re-opening a general debate on the Convention's “acquis” (unifying the treaties, legal personality, scrapping the “pillars” by incorporating the CFSP, CFDP and the area of freedom, security and justice in the Community framework, establishing an EU foreign minister, greater use of QMV, etc.). Only discussing the few problematic areas, avoiding horsetrading;
- rising above the poisonous atmosphere of clashes of nationalism that pervaded in Nice. No head of state can agree not to defend their country's interests, of course, but they need noble vision and an awareness of the general European interest. A few days ago, reacting to the convoluted dotting of the i's in comparisons of the powers of future Presidents of the European Council against the powers of the President of the Commission, Jacques Delors exploded: "we could have four Presidents even and everything would work well if they all have the European spirit and a feeling for the common interests!".
What spirit will prevail at the next IGC ? This is the crucial question - there is much to say on this issue, along with a few ideas to put forward. But let us first wait for the Convention's additional deliberations.
(F.R.)