If one is lucky in life … Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was not hypocritical and did not hide it or use paraphrases. He believes that under his leadership, the Convention has written a page in the history of Europe. He said this during his final address to Convention Members. A few significant quotations (there wasn't enough space to quote them in yesterday's summary.) “Never since the Messina Conference in the early 50s have Europeans been involved in reflection the way we have, in other words structured, complete, public and transparent reflection on the future of Europe. Maybe we have found a place in the history of Europe (…) In one's life, one is, if one is lucky, permitted once or twice to make a difference, to touch the hem of history. Together we have had that chance. Together we have taken it. We should all be proud of that.” VGE believes the draft Constitution the Convention will submit to the next Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) is “the furthest point it was possible to reach today without running the risk of tearing apart the European Union's still fragile tissue".
A solemn warning. VGE added a warning to his comments about history, addressed to governments, which will be finally endorsing the Constitutional Treaty. We had already heard this warning but it was a good time to make it formal: the Constitution has to remain as unchanged as possible and not be derailed during the Intergovernmental Conference. To head off this danger, the Chairman invited Convention Members to appeal to European politicians: “Citizens say yes to our Constitution, don't reply no”. Nothing can justify governments relaunching debate over issues the Convention Members have worked on for sixteen months, reflected, consulted experts and sought solutions. VGE noted that choices between often contradictory demands, between federalists and non-federalists, between Member States with large or small populations, between the roles of the various institutions, have already been made at the Convention. The answers to doubts and questions that some people want to raise again already exist and VGE confirmed his full availability in the autumn, along with the two Vice-Chairs, to defend and justify their proposals.
Up until the last day. Having already paid tribute to the right to whinge (with the delightful if involuntary assistance of Jean-Louis Bourlanges, see yesterday's column), today I believe I can stress the positive aspects of the Convention. Over and above its outcome, it has made a vital contribution to the European project. It demonstrated that it is possible to prepare for and negotiate European Treaties in a completely new way, putting an end to the monopoly of diplomatic negotiations that have become ineffective and jaundiced, and it will relieve Europe of the was of treaties currently in force, an unreadable pile of one text after another.
The new method's success proved itself right up until the last day, through compromises on two issues that basically resulted from misunderstandings but which were becoming problematic and risked poisoning the air at the IGC, namely voting procedures for culture and immigration issues. I am well aware that the wording decided upon are more dialectical tricks than true solutions. They clarify two clear issues, the fact that the EU cannot force a country to admit a certain number of immigrants to its labour market or sign cultural and broadcasting agreements that “harm the EU's cultural and linguistic diversity”. This is obvious but had to be put in writing to appease minds, and what's wrong with that? The introduction of European symbols is also to be noted, including (important detail) the currency. This has been widely reported - visibility is important.
Two points remain to be settled. Other requests from the Commission, the Parliament or various Member States have no chance of being accepted by the IGC, which will not be able to strike agreement where agreement was not found at the Convention. In my view, however, two issues may lead the IGC off course to debate fundamental issues that have to be avoided at all costs. The first is voting procedures on the Council - some Member States want changes to the decided method. The second is the composition and functioning of the European Commission - the Convention's ideas fails to convince, more thought is required (and has already started). It is important that the negotiations between Presidency and Member States on these two issues (with the involvement of the Commission and the Convention Presidency) starts at the beginning of September rather than waiting for the IGC to meet. I will try to contribute, not with suggestions (that isn't my role) but with clarifications, taking on board important contributions of which I have or will come to be aware.
(F.R.)