The European Parliament took an energetic stance in favour of rapid, if not immediate, resumption of the work of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on the Constitution for Europe. The new Council Presidency and some governments, however, recommend caution and the advice given by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is to wait until the second term for official negotiation. There are many factors to be taken into consideration, largely exceeding procedural issues. It is a matter of what the content of the Constitution should be. Among other things, there is:
1. Uncertainty about the state of progress of talks at the time when they were broken off. In the final phase of the work of the IGC, on 12 and 13 December, Silvio Berlusconi suggested compromise solutions in his bilateral meetings with the other Heads of Government. However, having noted that agreement could not be reached on the future arrangements for majority voting within Council, he gave up the idea of including in the text all the points for which he considered consensus had been reached. There is mainly uncertainty about giving up unanimous voting in some fields. Tony Blair considers it an acquired fact that there will be no transition to qualified majority vote for taxation, social security and part of the JHA (Justice and Home Affairs) field. This is not the opinion of other governments, which have not had an opportunity to express their views on such matters. It would seem that, even on the "Naples text", presented by the presidency to the delegations prior to the Summit, there is still reservation, for example on the composition of the Commission (France continues to combat the "one Commissioner per Member State" rule) and on a number of more technical aspects: arrangements for creating the "common external service" to come under the responsibility of the European Foreign Minister, the legal base for new energy provisions, and the suspension clause for Council deliberations in the JHA and social security areas (emergency brake).
The new Presidency must first of all reconstitute the texts by specifying what is to be considered as already accomplished and what is still being negotiated.
2. Assessment differs on relations with European elections in June. Some MEPs consider the Constitution must be approved before these elections, if one wants to excite the interest of citizens. According to German Social Democrat Jo Leinen, the impetus given by the Convention will be lost if the Constitution does not come about. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of the Greens, considers that, if the Giscard Constitution "is not saved in three or four months, it is dead". I could go on with the quotes.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's opinion is quite different. He considers that, if "several large parties" place approval of the Constitution at the centre of their electoral campaign by clearly stating they are in favour of the Convention's draft, and if they obtain a majority, "this will mean something". His recommendation is: "We cannot take the risk of a second failure. Let's not be hasty. We must not block the system by being in too much of a hurry".
3. Are positions on modalities for majority vote in Council reconcilable?
The analysis of the texts proves that the difference between Spain and Poland on one hand, and most of the other Member States on the other, has been blown out of all proportion. In reality, the Council rarely votes, and when this happens there is often a very big majority, far beyond what is legally required. It has been calculated that the distance which separates the two formulas (that of Nice and that of double majority) is in fact minimal. It has often been observed that the battle does not cover the best way to adopt decisions (which is the element which counts if one wants the enlarged Union to work properly), but on the possibility of blocking them. Arguments in favour of the Treaty of Nice formula are very weak and even comprise striking contradictions. According to one careful observer who has a long personal experience of the way in which the Council works, the former Permanent Representative for Italy with the EU, Pietro Calamia, positions are not at all reconcilable (see our bulletin of 30 December, p.5). He believes that, between protagonists there are "questions of prestige, both national and personal, rather than substance", and it is on the "prestige" aspect that it will be complicated to remedy the "rift torn in Brussels".
It is up to the Irish Presidency to assess these different elements and to prepare for resumed negotiation through contacts at the very highest level. A positive start has been made. The Spanish and Portuguese authorities have restated their resolve to compromise and regret that the negotiations on 13 December had not been taken further. But the problems still to be resolved go beyond the Polish-Spanish issue. Go back and read point 1 again: it may be that the most serious difficulties lie elsewhere, even though they may be less visible. (F.R.)