For the moment, the IGC, which is meant to give birth to the Constitution for Europe, is experiencing a worst case scenario. While waiting for Thursday, Heads of Government and Foreign Affairs Ministers are behaving as if they were in intergovernmental negotiations, of which Europe has often sadly experienced. They create the impression that they have forgotten that almost two years ago in Laeken, Member States had learned the lesson of the failure of the most recent IGCs and had decided to change the method. The birth of the Convention was an admission of impotence. A certain number of Heads of Government considered that this concession was just a façade to please the European Parliament and the federalist movements, certain that nothing valuable would come out of this strange assembly of national parliamentarians, MEPs, representatives from the Community institutions and governments and everything would go back to intergovernmental normality. The contrary was true and a draft from the Convention, which is not perfect, was produced, which is balanced and reasonable and which, above all, includes definite progress, which has sometimes been spectacular in European construction. At the present moment, this result is upsetting some Member States.
Two troublesome witnesses. Fortunately, two MEPs are attending the work. They haven't created any sparks, adopt measured tones but tell what they see and add some of their "own personal" considerations (see our bulletin yesterday, p 41). It therefore appears that the fault of the IGC so far is at the basis and the way in which Member States tackle it. Klaus Hänsch believes that too many governments are not taking the Convention seriously and have not understood that it has genuine democratic legitimacy. Inigo Mendez de Vigo thinks that Foreign Affairs Ministers are thinking in terms of power and sometime fight in an absurd fashion for the weight of their country in one or other of the institutions, forgetting the essential, namely, that progress in the draft Constitution includes the very nature of the Union: more democracy, extension of European construction in essential areas (foreign policy, defence, freedom and security area), Charter of fundamental rights and so forth.
Shadows and a few rays of light. The two parliamentarians are refusing to dramatise things. The IGC is just beginning, with the position of the national positions whose presidency has not yet made any synthesis. But they are not denying that for the moment, "we are wasting time, as the positions and arguments on which they are based, were, we already know, discussed by the Convention". The orientation in the direction of fewer ambitions: "Legislative Council" eliminated, which for the Parliament, is essential; tendency to diminish the rank and therefore role of the European Minister of Foreign Affairs; majority for a very numerous Commission…How will the European Parliament react if this direction continues? The two parliamentarians consider that it is too early to tell; too early to define a strategy for tomorrow, the political groups and the plenary session have to be informed and debate it. According to Mr Mendez de Vigo, "what is happening is the proof that the IGC belongs to the past". But, "we are in a community of law, the last word goes to the Member States: we have to live with the IGC".
Detailed debates are lacking at the IGC but are beginning partially on the fringes. For voting procedure at the Council, Spain appears to be open to compromises on percentages (66% of the population in favour, would be necessary for a European decision to be taken?). the mysterious "defence protocol", with the list of countries ready to take par in "structured cooperation", announced in the draft Constitution but which does not exist for the moment, is beginning to get a hearing. Other issues are rising to the surface. On the other hand, no light appears to be shed on the composition of the future European Commission. defenders of the Treaty or Nice appear to have forgotten that with more than 25 members, this treaty is planning on have fewer Commissioners than States. But if we go back to the principle of each country having its own Commissioner, then the large countries could also ask to have two, like the situation is today and has been since the birth of the Community, pointed out Joschka Fischer, as if a very large Commission is sought, adding a few Commissioners will not change much. Meanwhile, leading European personalities have given their views but which appear quite divergent. I continue to believe that the ideas are not yet ready for a detailed and complete solution to include in the Constitution. We are running the risk of ending up with bad and ephemeral solutions like the institutional package of Nice. I will look at this again tomorrow. (FR)