Good intentions. The intentions are good. If, instead of reading the complete text of the European Commission opinion on the convening of the next Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), we stick to the statement to the press made by President Prodi (see bulletins from yesterday and the day before), it is difficult not to generally share the Commission's opinion. Romano Prodi indicated that:
- The Convention has already done most of the ground work to provide Europe with a Constitution. 90% of the ground has been covered and there remains 10% to improve, without compromising the equilibrium of the draft handed to the Heads of State by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing;
- The Commission has the duty to nevertheless specify a few crucial changes it perceives to be in the interest of the Member States, companies and all citizens.
- It nonetheless limited its suggestions to a very restrained set of points: a) enlarge the field of majority decisions, without contemplating an unacceptable generalisation of the tool; b) enhance the coordination of economic policies, notably between Euro Area countries (which must be capable of autonomously taking decisions that concern them); c) revise the Commission's composition (notably the chapters concerning the Union's common policies, which must be updated and simplified), without automatically requiring Member State unanimity and ratification by all national parliaments.
What is an authentic IGC? These are, I repeat, reasonable guidelines. Though, if we look at the detail, a few difficulties arise. First point: according to Prodi, it has clearly emerged that most of the Member States want an authentic intergovernmental conference. How should this adjective be interpreted? If it means that the next IGC must be similar to those that preceded it, the Commission misunderstands the meaning and importance of the Convention. The new method for the drafting of the European Treaty inaugurated by the Convention must precisely mean that the future IGCs will be different, without returning to the concessionist compromise method, seen through reciprocal concessions between governments. I know full well that a majority of Ministers for Foreign Affairs in Riva del Garda have accepted, as is, the spirit, methods and procedures of the former IGCs (see this section on 11 September). However, it would be depressing if the Commission followed suit. The radically innovative nature of the next IGC must be safeguarded at all cost, and never mind if this IGC is less 'authentic'.
Farewell to the principal of collective responsibility? Second remark: concerning the Commission's composition, Romano Prodi's team has concocted a true revolution (to which we will return in detail), by reintroducing the principal of a 'Commissioner of each nationality' and by foreseeing, in order to make such a large College effective, the creation of 'groups of Commissioners,' specialised in certain fields, not only to preparing decisions, but to taking them. The entire Commission asserts the document, would only be consulted for the most important issues and would take a limited number of decisions. The principal of collective responsibility would be brought into question, as for a significant number of decisions the College would not decide as such and the majority of Commissioners would not express themselves. I do not say that this is a bad solution, simply, I doubt the such a revolution may be accomplished by the IGC within a few months. This needs preparation, maturation, to raise a wide ranging debate that is open to all the bodies that form the Convention. Thus, I return to the position outlined in this section on 4 September: to not overload the IGC boat, not to insert too many details (sometimes outdated) in the Constitutions, but to stick to the principals and general rules and to define a procedure for the future approval of the detailed decision. Either way, the next Commission will be formed according to the provisions of the Treaty of Nice, and the details for the 2009 Commission can be prepared and defied without haste, in the light of the experience gained in the meantime from a Commission with 25.
Concerning the extension of the majority rule: I will stick to noting what Commissioner Michel Barnier has just announced: Improvements are needed, but we know they are extremely difficult, nigh impossible. Then why not pull back (as the Commission did with regard to the modifications to common policies) to stand with eased procedures and to later modify certain aspects of the Constitution? By including too many points on the IGC's agenda, we risk reopening the debate and not respecting the given deadlines. And then, watch out for the consequences!
(F.R.)