Several Convention Members are doing their utmost to beef up the content and outcome of the final stages of their work (this Wednesday and Thursday) despite the clear limits set on the extra time conceded by heads of government to the Convention Chairman. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing insists on these limits (changing the slightest comma of the first and second parts of the draft Constitution (already formally submitted to the Summit) it is out of the question), but at the same time he has not ruled out a few innovations being incorporated in the third part (on common policies). While this is not being talked about, these changes could extend beyond technical changes (eg, governance of the eurozone). It is clear, all the same, that the Convention should strike a balance between two demands - improving the current text where possible, while avoiding the danger of giving Member States an opportunity to relaunch the negotiations whole scale. VGE is keeping his eye on this.
Given the objective set-up and the views expressed last Friday, preparing for the final session this week, I will try to summarise the situation.
1) Giving the eurozone greater autonomy. Several Convention Members lay great emphasis on the fact that countries in the eurozone should themselves be able to take most decisions that concern them rather than having to go through the full Ecofin Council (it should be noted that the eurozone countries will be in a minority on the Ecofin Council for a number of years). Eurozone autonomy should not be restricted to additional or complementary measures. Its decision-making capacity should cover vital aspects like Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG), procedures for dealing with excess deficits and multilateral surveillance. This demand is so logical that VGE will no doubt take it on board. The UK opposes it because it doesn't want to be excluded from decision-making concerning the main bulk of the European Union, which is understandable. But one should not forget that nobody excluded the UK (or Sweden or Denmark for that matter) from the eurozone. They decided for themselves not to join.
2) Unanimity versus QMV for trade policy impacting on culture. Pascal Lamy's arguments for unanimity (already used for other aspects of trade policy) did not convince French Convention Members, who all favour the status quo. Hubert Haenel introduced another argument for unanimous voting, namely that in France, the Constitution will “probably” be put to a referendum, and if “cultural exception” is not guaranteed, all the highly influential cultural stakeholders will oppose the Constitution. Misunderstandings abound and things are not very clear. The Praesidium is unlikely to change the current draft, but the issue should still be given some consideration, before the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) where possible to avoid the issue being subject to horse trading between France and other Member States.
Points concerning the European Parliament's new powers in common trade policy (its endorsement being compulsory, which in fact puts the EP on a par with the Council) have not been challenged and are a considerable advance in terms of democracy in the EU.
3) Pointless support for QMV for various tax issues? The most recent debate confirmed the impression that differences between Convention Members (and Member States) in this connection are largely due to misunderstandings. If the limits on QMV sought by the European Commission could be well explained, much opposition would be dropped. VGE highlighted this himself, regretting the lack of understanding. Various Convention Members' arguments for this change hold water and are convincing in my view, but opposition remains firm (see the report in our bulletin of 5 July, p. 3). The Praesidium will therefore not be able to find a consensus and the unanimity rule will have to remain in the draft. But there would still be the possibility of change at the IGC (if it is well prepared in advance and the interested parties proved that the EU institutions are only aiming to get the greater single market to work smoothly and are not seeking any powers over national budgets beyond the measures of the Stability Pact).
4) Common foreign policy. There are too many (partially contradictory) amendments concerning CFSP voting mechanisms for them to be able to agreed upon in a day and a half. The argument that erupted last week in plenary between German minister Joschka Fischer and other Convention Members over a common diplomatic corps is, however, based on nothing but misunderstandings and will no doubt be settled (see p.5 of our 5 July bulletin), leaving aside technical details about composition and the institutional role of the corps - which don't necessarily need to be set out in the Constitution.
5) Reviews and application. There are many attempts to facilitate future reviews of the Constitutional Treaty (prepared by new Conventions). French minister Dominique de Villepin has suggested that if four fifths of Member States have ratified a Review Treaty in the two years following its signature, the Council should decide by QMV on it coming into force. Elmar Brok and 20 other deputies went even further and suggest a Review Treaty would come into force as soon as fourth fifths of Member States have ratified it. Moreover, there would be simplified procedures for reviewing less fundamental parts of the Constitutional Treaty - decision by the European Council and approval by the European Parliament without consideration by national parliaments.
All this, however, only concerns the Constitutional Treaty itself, for which the draft simply includes the “statement” mentioned in my column of 4 July, in other words two years after signature, the European Council may decide on the issue if four fifths of countries have ratified it but the others are having problems. VGE feels there is no legal solution to get round the demand for unanimous voting to replace the current Treaties with the Constitutional Treaty. The problem of one (or two) countries not ratifying does exist, and VGE acknowledges the importance of this, but he feels this is not the Convention's job. The “ Penelope idea” included a solution that clearly failed to convince VGE (or he felt it was not a good idea to promote it).
One demand appears acceptable, others are more problematic. One demand that could prima facie be accepted by the Praesidium is the one concerning the EU's symbols. Olivier Duhamel has pointed that most of the Convention agrees. An EU flag, currency, anthem and “day” already exist so why not feature them in the Constitution, maybe adding a slogan? They would make the EU more visible to public opinion… Several Convention Members supported this idea in plenary and one doesn't see why Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who initially suggest it himself, should not support it now.
On the other hand, other demands and suggestions would seem to require a genuine debate to determine whether they are likely to be agreed upon. One cannot see that happening on Wednesday afternoon (on Thursday the Convention will limit itself to endorsing the entire draft and formally ceasing work). Two examples:
- The budget procedure. An behalf of the French government, Pascale Andréani has called for Parliament-Council codecision to be respected until the final approval of the annual budget, whereas the current draft would give the EP the option of adopting the budget on its own in the event of disagreement with the Council;
- Establishing a “European Prosecutor". A number of Convention Members see this as vital for combatting crime more effectively. Hubert Haenel has suggested setting up “specific reinforced cooperation” to enable countries that so desire to make rapid advances in this connection while respecting the decisions of countries that oppose the very idea of a European Prosecutor.
I don't think it will be possible to strengthen the measures concerning facilities (“services of general interest”). Their supporters have already won a great deal (a few years ago it would have been seen as a very difficult target to meet) and it would be difficult to win more. The German request for unanimity on immigration issues deserves separate comment.
What is haunting VGE? The above-mentioned points (and a few others) may arise at the IGC, and this is both a danger and hope. Hope because it is natural for people who have been dreaming of a European Constitution ever since the days of Altiero Spinelli to attempt to enhance the document right up until the last moment. A danger because relaunching debate in an inter-governmental context may turn into horsetrading between Member States, based on mutual concessions inevitably leading to minimum compromises and destroying the current balances. VGE believes this must be avoided at all costs. It is his main concern, as he said during last Wednesday's plenary and will reiterate this Wednesday. Reaffirming popular and “affectionate” support for the European project and the “warm, positive” welcome from heads of state in Thessalonica, he called for people not to have too many illusions since some governments will be sorely “tempted” to amend the draft, but if various parts of the draft are opened up for discussion, the overall balance will be jeopardised the outcome distorted.
(F.R.)