Negotiating tactic or actual position. As the next IGC draws nearer, prospects continue to deteriorate. Is this the usual tactics being used by the different interests for strengthening their bargaining positions or is it symptomatic of divergences getting more acute?
In the context of information, our readers are certainly not left wanting. Last week they got the whole of the draft European Commission Opinion on the Convention's draft Constitution (No.2321/2322 of our EUROPE/DOCUMENTS series) and on Friday they were treated to the passionate and convincing intervention made by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in defence of this draft. This week the European Parliament is going to give its verdict on the Gil-Robles/Tsato report. After this, in the following week, Heads of Governments will have their say at the opening of the IGC. It is in this context that the dangers increase. The difference between Romano Prodi, President of the Commission and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing get more acute. It won' be circumstantial sentences uttered by Mr Prodi alone, on the merits of the project adopted by the Convention and its President, that will modify the fundamental divergence: VGE considers that the draft must be approved as it is with a few minor adjustments; Mr Prodi is asking, together with the Commission for the debate on several controversial issues to be re-opened.
This divergence on the method appears more and more serious with the two interlocutors progressively making their ideas known, as they did last week. Formerly, in Strasbourg, Roman Prodi addressed the European Parliament and gave the impression of wanting to keep the door to any rapprochement. He certainly re-asserted that the current draft was "incomplete and insufficient" and that Commission was in favour of improving it. He added, however, that, control was needed if political will was to achieve changes in Member States or if "considerations suggest that problems are currently left alone and that the draft is left as it is". If this is the case, the Commission is prepared to address the matter calmly and realistically, awareness of the fact that very significant progress has been achieved". It interpreted these words in the sense that the Commission, as guardian of the treaty and Community orthodoxy felt duty bound to indicate that that current draft was not entirely satisfactory but that it was prepared to support it. The nuanced points have disappeared from the official recommendation. Shortcomings have been explained in detail and the Commission is requesting that they move forward with timely modifications. A point, that's all.
Uncomfortable and disagreeable. It appears that the disastrous meeting at Riva del Garda convinced Romano Prodi of the desire of the majority of Member States to re-open the debate in a "genuine" IGC and of the opportunity that the Commission subsequently takes a position in favour of the modifications that it is seeking. This has resulted in the media and public opinion placing the Commission among the adversaries of the current draft, together with the most unenthusiastic Member States.
How can they be found to be wrong? In the presentations to public opinion, the protagonists of the IGC are divided into two categories: those who support the Convention draft and those that don't like it. And the Commission is almost always situated in the second group. Is this the result that has been sought after? I believe that for the Commission, it's an uncomfortable and disagreeable positition and it will be even more so at the end of the week if Parliament gives priority to approving the draft for the IGC by demanding that the debate is not re-opened by Heads of government.
It's plain to see that it is above all the very idea of the next IGC that is causing the divergences. Romano Prodi restricted himself to pointing out that most Member States want a "genuine" IGC. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, on the contrary, is sticking to the view that a radically different IGC, totally different from those of the past is needed, as it represents a stage in the "Laeken process" in the direction of a European constitution (see our bulletin 19 September p 4). Heads of government give the impression of being just as divided, several (Mr Aznar in particular) believe that the current draft is only a "starting point" for the IGC.
In these conditions, there is not point for the moment analysing in detail the divergences on the text. I'll just confirm that in my opinion the two formulas for discussion the composition of the Commission are both bad and that another solution is needed (see this section on 4 September). For the rest, we have to wait for Heads of governments to firstly clarify to what point their reservations on the current draft are tactical or deep-seated opposition. (F.R.)