Predictable differences. I am not surprised by the difficulties the IGC has faced in its discussions on the future composition of the European Commission, nor by the differences between the positions expressed by the eminent people who know Community affairs and whose pro-European essence is beyond discussion. And yet they are saying the opposite of each other. Examples of this?
Jacques Delors explained recently that, having shared the view of a Commission in which all nationalities of the Union are represented, long reflection has led him to a more solid conception, which is more in line with the notion of a college far removed from any reference to the nationality of the Commissioners; he now believes that, in a Union of 25 or more, there should be fewer Commissioners than Member States, for reasons of efficiency and principle. The next Commission will be composed according to the provisions of the Treaty of Nice, with all Member States represented, so that each acceding country can have "its" Commissioner, and can get used to the spirit and the workings of the Community institutions. After that, the number of Commissioners will have to be reduced.
But this is what Commissioner Pascal Lamy, former chef de cabinet under Jacques Delors, had to say: "My personal experience tells me that the right system is the one we have today. It isn't perfect, but there isn't anything better. The idea that someone from Portugal could go and talk about Europe to the Spanish, or a Briton to the Irish, is hilarious. The citizens of each country of the Union should know that their sensitivity is being represented in Brussels, even though the Commissioners do not speak on behalf of their country of origin".
The very Vice-President of the Convention, Giuliano Amato, dislikes the formula championed by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. He explained why in a recent interview: "the formula retained by the Convention is not the best. I proposed keeping one Commissioner per country, with a rotation of functions between Commissioners with a portfolio and delegate Commissioners without portfolio. This solution had been accepted by the governments! Then the Convention Members went home, and they changed their minds. The story about Commissioners without voting rights came out, which seems like a real slap in the face to me. I think the Commission's proposal was justified (even though I am not happy with the wording), because I am all for any solution which provides voting rights for all, with the possibility of different functions".
But Belgian Prime Minister Guy de Verhofstadt thinks the opposite: "if we compare the two models on the table, that of the Convention (fifteen Commissioners with voting rights, the others without) and that of the Commission (a Commissioner of each nationality with a new hierarchy of the college), we can see that the former fits all countries' demands much better than the latter. The Commission's proposal establishes two classes of Commissioner, without equality of treatment between the States. I fail to understand why the Commission is trying to create what it has always hoped to avoid. In its proposal, each State will appear to have a Commissioner, but, in reality, six or seven Commissioners will make all the decisions; and let's be honest, they will all be from the biggest countries. The Commission's proposal is highly dangerous. My colleagues from Benelux and I are trying to get this across". And indeed, Luxembourg's permanent representative, Ambassador Nicolas Schmit, said that the Prodi formula "makes mincemeat of collegiality: it has no credibility and it is harmful". The Giscard d'Estaing draft, he feels, is a good starting point, which, with a bit of work, could be made into an effective practical solution. However, who can forget the unambiguous terms with which Romano Prodi attacked it...
Leave some of the details out of the Constitution. This little anthology of opposing positions justifies my impression that a satisfactory solution that can attract the indispensable consensus is not ready, if the IGC is to respect the timescale planned for its work to finish. I think it would be better if the IGC abandoned the idea of including in the Constitution details which, in my view, do not belong there, which seem inevitably to represent shaky compromises which will soon be left behind by events, and even trying to find which will poison the atmosphere at the Conference. The Constitution could lay down the broad principles- the Commission's autonomy from the governments, the independence of the Commissioners, essential duties, etc, and leave the Community institutions, particularly the European Council, to fill in the details at a later date, in the light of experience, during the term of the forthcoming Commission to be appointed under the rules of the Treaty of Nice (one Commissioner per Member State). This would give them a few years to get rid of the misunderstandings and re-establish trust between the various groups of countries. This dossier must not be allowed to scupper the IGC.
(F.R.)