Is the about-turn on the prospects for the Constitution's being adopted a bit abrupt? At the end of last year, it was all going to the dogs: the end of Europe, according to the sensationalist press, and even some of the wiser observers were calling for negotiations to be left until the second half of 2004... Today, agreement before the European elections of June is said to be within reach. This sudden optimism seems a bit excessive to me, and almost scares me. Agreement is possible, it is true, and I was one of the first to say so (see this column of 4 January), and, I believe, the first to stress positive developments and reasons for being a bit upbeat (see this column of 23 January). But we must not slip into blind optimism, because there are still many obstacles, as many of which are hidden as visible. We could put them into three categories:
A. Institutional differences on majority voting modalities in the Council and the composition of the European Commission. Last week, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, speaking to the EPP Congress, said that he feels these are the only points outstanding; the rest has been agreed and is positive. He even said that if the EU already had a "permanent President" of the Council, the Constitution would already have been approved. I am convinced that differences on voting in Council could be smoothed out using the principle of double majority (States and populations), with a few tweaks. On the other hand, I continue to believe that the two formulae for the composition of the Commission are both dangerous: that of "15 Commissioners", not in itself, but due to the rigidity of the rotation criteria, based solely on the principle of nationality, leaving aside the personality, prestige and durability of the Commissioners; that of one Commissioner per country, because it would rob the Commission of authority and legitimacy (without radically changing the way it works). The Constitutions should retain neither formula as definitive and unalterable, but just establish principles. In the meantime, the Treaty of Nice is in force, and so the "one Commissioner per country" formula will apply to the next Commission. The EU has several years to lay down detailed rules in the light of experience, without including them in the Constitution.
B. Hidden disagreements, which are mainly (but not solely) related to what Mr Berlusconi promised his colleagues bilaterally on the last day of negotiations, to sound out the chances of compromise. The UK wants to consider what it was promised as granted, especially on keeping unanimous voting; but France- which is not alone- does not recognise anything outside the Naples compromise, and won't even discuss it. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing called for the Convention's results on majority voting to be left alone, because he feels it is impossible to go further at the moment. Other results from Naples were more or less openly challenged, in the field of CFSP (administrative staff of the Foreign Ministry, voting mechanisms) and Justice and Home Affairs. It is hard to predict what bits will cause problems when the time comes to conclude, but there will certainly be problems.
C. Defence. The agreement based on negotiations between France, the UK and Germany was presented as a done deal, but Mr Haenel's reading (see this column of 4 February) raised a few doubts.
Michel Barnier hopes to reassure. Mr Barnier, who chaired the "defence" group of the Convention, is not contesting changes introduced by the IGC in two planks of the Convention's draft, but feels Mr Haenel's conclusions are too alarmist:
- "structured co-operation". To take part, the criteria retained (capacity to provide efficient and operation combat units by 2007, etc) are more appropriate and effective than setting a percentage of GDP for defence. The presence (without voting rights) of all Member States in the negotiations of this co-operation is in line with the objective of encouraging the gradual participation of most States. As for the new members, it is quite natural for a country willing and able to join to be allowed to do so.
- "mutual assistance and defence clause". The political value of the clause remains unchanged, as it is taken for granted that all signatory Member States "must" intervene in case of attack against another signatory country. The alternative wording put forward by four neutral countries was not retained.
Mr Barnier has done all in his power until now. It is now up to Ireland to confirm, in its report to the Summit, that the wording of the four countries has gone, and we will see if all Four are really in agreement. (F.R.)