Nothing sensational, but all the same… What can be expected from the Convention's extra session of Friday 4 July and next week? Nothing sensational, hammers out Chairman Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. He's right of course because after the presentation of the draft Constitution to heads of state, the Convention cannot go back on the broad consensus it reached. Public opinion sees things as settled - the principles, guidelines and main measures of the Constitution will stay as they are, and progress towards uniting Europe is such as VGE set out when presenting the draft at the Thessalonica Summit.
The situation is rather different if rather than taking public opinion as a whole, we take people who have followed the Convention's work step by step in detail and who can make an assessment of what may appear to be minor or purely technical amendments. I address this article to such people. There is a phenomenal number of amendments to Part III (EU policies) and Part IV (final measures) of the draft - almost 1700 in all. The Praesidium is awaiting the debate on Friday before deciding which amendments are likely to achieve the necessary consensus to be incorporated in the text but has already made a few changes it thinks are likely to be accepted. They mainly cover the following three areas:
1) A common diplomatic corps. The Praesidium set out that in carrying out its mandate, the EU Foreign Minister shall be supported by a European external action service working in close cooperation with the Member States' diplomatic corps. This is what the German and Belgian foreign ministers, Joschka Fischer and Louis Michel, suggested. The European Commission wants greater detail, making the Foreign Minister responsible for managing the common diplomatic corps, made up of Council and Commission officials and Member States' diplomats. But this could be settled later, separately from the Constitution.
2) Services of general economic interest (utilities). The Praesidium has selected a legal basis which in practice implies a horizontal EU regulation stipulating general measures applicable to utilities. This idea is being challenged within the Commission itself (it sat on the fence in its Green Paper) and it is awaiting the outcome of a broad consultation exercise and debate at the European Parliament on the Herzog report. To be followed.
3) Representing the euro overseas and chairing Eurogroup. The Praesidium agreed to the common positions on the eurozone's relations with the rest of the world being adopted by the Eurogroup (or a limited Ecofin Council attended only by eurozone ministers) based on a Commission proposal. The Praesidium proposes that the Eurogroup chair be appointed for two and a half years (in line with other Presidencies).
4) The Praesidium has not give its opinions of more controversial amendments to fundamental issues, preferring to see whether, in plenary, the amendments are supported. A few comments:
5) A tactic to further extend QMV? There are numerous such amendments, which experts have analysed. They focus on three areas: a) taxation. The Commission insists QMV be introduced in some areas (see this column of 26 June for Commissioner Bolkestein's views); b) common foreign policy for when an initiative is put forward by the EU Foreign Minister with the support of the European Commission. There could be a gradual shift to QMV, set out in an "evolving" clause: c) future changes to the Constitution. Some amendments want qualified majority voting (QMV) to be explicitly mentioned (in addition to the procedure set out in Article IV-6 of the current draft).
6) It is unlikely that the amendments on the above three points will get enough support for the Praesidium to note the existence of consensus. The firm British opposition to QMV for taxation is well-known, and various other parties hold reservations about the two other areas.
7) In this situation, Convention Members in favour of QMV seem to be preparing an alternative tactic to prepare the way for greater QMV. They seem to be seeking sufficient support to get the Chairman to annex a similar document to the Constitution to the one setting out the minority Eurosceptic views but noting that the majority of Convention Members support greater QMV. Otherwise the problem will be raised at the IGC (Intergovernmental Conference) by the European Commission "opinion" (expected in September). The Commission is expected to call for QMV on a series of issues, some immediately and others form 2009 onwards.
8) Keeping unanimous decision-making for cultural relations with non-Member States? Various government representatives, headed by French minister Dominique de Villepin and Belgian minister Louis Michel, have tabled amendments to keep unanimous decision-making when setting out the EU's culture policy in relation to non-Member States, as in the current Treaty. The draft Constitution scraps unanimity in order to harmonise common trade procedures. The situation is as follows: the 1958 Treaty, drawn up when international economic relations basically meant trade in goods, and did not directly over other areas. Since then, services, patents and other non-material goods (including culture) have gradually become more important. Given the excellent achievements of common trade policy and the need to consolidate and extend it, the Convention has called (with one exception) for QMV to be generalised, extending it to areas which are currently subject to unanimous decision-making. But France and other Member States argue that unanimity should be retained for cultural aspects of trade agreements.
9) This is highly controversial. Pascal Lamy says that QMV would favour European culture since including the safeguard and development of European cultural heritage in the EU's objectives (Constitution Article 1-3) implies positive action; which would be easier to approve and implement if decisions are taken by QMV. Veto rights are purely "defensive", i.e. belonging to an era which should be well and truly over by now, given agreement at the Convention on respecting cultural and linguistic diversity. France, however, wants an exception to be made for culture in order to prevent vital elements of cultural policy being on the negotiating table with non-EU Member States (particularly the United States). For this reason, Dominique de Villepin tabled the above-mentioned amendment, supported by the government representatives of Belgium, Portugal, Ireland and Poland, along with other Convention Members in an individual capacity. It is unlikely that consensus will be reached in the Convention on this amendments so the issue will resurface in the IGC.
10) "The Spanish institutional problem will to directly to the IGC. Spain did not table any amendments asking the Convention to change draft Constitution measures on voting procedures on the Council along the lines set out by Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio since it did not want to challenge consensus. But Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar (at the Thessalonica Summit) and Ana Palacio herself (at the Convention's last plenary) confirmed Spain's preference for the Nice compromise rather than the double majority rule. The IGC will therefore have this to deal with. Bilateral contact between the Italian Presidency of the IGC and the Spanish government (possibly along with the Commission and the Convention Presidency) could precede the IGC to try and find a solution, particularly if it is decided to follow Jacques Delors' suggestion of appointing a go between to defuse potential conflict before the official opening of the IGC (see page 4 of our 1 July bulletin) and avoid sparking off "endless controversy" at the IGC.
11) The question of when the Constitution is to come into force remains open. As Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has explained, the Convention made no attempt to solve the tricky issue of what will happen if a Member State fails to ratify the Constitution. It is unthinkable that the Constitution could disappear because of reservations by a single parliament (or a single country in the event of a referendum) if all others agree. VGE acknowledges that this vita issue requires a political solution but he argues that it is not the Convention's job to come up with one. This doesn't mean, however, that the Convection has totally ignored the issue - it endorsed a "statement" noting that if, two years after the signing of the Treaty establishing the Constitution, four-fifths of Member States have ratified the Treaty and one or more Member States have had problems with the said ratification, the issue shall be considered by the European Council.
The Convention has therefore suggested a procedure. I feel this is not enough since it puts off consideration of the issue until 2005 but the problem should be looked at and settled immediately in my view, regardless of the British reservations. I think it is unhealthy to allow uncertainty to hang in the air over whether the Constitution will come into force in countries that have ratified it irrespective of legal problems surrounding other countries' views. (F.R.)