The way in which the Convention on the last day of its work, smoothed out two divergences that risked seriously complicating the way forward to the European Constitution confirmed that trust, mutual understanding and a little imagination helped to calm down restive spirits. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and his presidium found some good formulas and the IGC will no have to worry about them.
To be clear: the two subjects in question are in themselves extremely important as they affect subjects as sensitive as protecting cultural identity in our countries and the arrival in the Member States of immigrant workers from third countries. But the intentions of the European institutions had been badly misunderstood or misinterpreted. A little (or a lot) of demagogy came into things, with the European Commission being accused of not defending the cultural identities of Member States and of seeking to remove the right of governments to decide on the number of workers from outside the Community who can work on the different national labour markets.
The two formulas in the draft Constitution will help clarify things:
A. Immigration. Provisions in Article 163 of the Constitutional Treaty involves common immigration policy and are completed by paragraph 5 which says, "this article does not affect the right of Member States to set the number of third country nationals entering their territory and seeking waged on non-waged employment there". This right remains unchanged but in Germany the fear that Article 163 would be changed was artificially diffused, which would authorise the Council of the Union to decide by majority voting on the number of Turks, Kurds, Russians that Germany would be obliged to accept. In reality, common policy aims to manage immigration flows, strengthen fight against illegal immigration, sets the conditions for entering and residing an EU country, as well as the rights and responsibilities for legal immigrants but leaves the Member States (with European co-ordination) the responsibility for establishing the number of them.
B. Cultural and audio-visual services. Decision on EU trade agreements with third countries will generally be taken by the Council deciding by majority, with a few exceptions (foreign and defence policy and currency), to which the following has been added in extremis: "the Council also decides by unanimity in negotiating and concluding agreements in the area of cultural and audio-visual services when these could damage cultural and linguistic diversity in Europe".
This new provision has reassured the French authorities, which can now say out loud which are the categories covered by cultural activities, as well as the right of veto being maintained and cultural exception safeguarded. This was no necessary because the new treaty included the following principle in the EU's objectives, "the Union respects the wealth of cultural and linguistic diversity and will ensure the safeguarding and development of European cultural heritage". All agreements with a third country that damages cultural or linguistic diversity will therefore in itself by illegal due to the incompatibility with the objectives of the Union. A specific provision confirms this . And so much the better.
Decisions to support culture will be easier. The result is positive because it confirms that outside of the purely theoretical cases of harm brought to the cultures of the Member States, the EU in all other cases can reach decision by qualified majority and therefore adopt either positive measures more easily or defence measures against abuse from other parties.
Pascal Lamy underlined his reasons for majority voting in a letter to Jean-Jacques Aillagon, the French Minister of Culture. I'll take a few passages from it: "It is because I am a fervent believer in cultural diversity and because I want the EU to set the objectives for promoting culture that I am in favour of extending majority voting. In a Union of 25, unanimity is an instrument for our paralysis. With the right of veto, it will always be possible to find a Member State - 1 out of 25 - to break consensus". Mr Lamy used three cases for illustrating where European culture would be the loser if unanimity as the rule persisted: a) to support the Convention draft on "cultural diversity" in the framework of UNESCO (a project that is challenged by the USA); b) for adopting, within the WTO, a common position against possible measures from a third country that diffuses European films or records; c) for approving "positive" measures for European culture and its diversity. "In these cases, "majority facilitates and unanimity prevents"
We are therefore able to see the ability of VGE in taking into account both French worries and the goals of the Commission. This is positive for both Europe and its culture.