Success must come in May, before the European elections. The second main theme of the Spring Summit after terrorism (see this column yesterday) was the re-launch of negotiations of the European Constitution. The small text on this (paragraphs 3 and 4 of the "Presidency conclusions" reproduced in EUROPE/Documents, Nr 2367, distributed with yesterday's bulletin) has an essential significance: it does not talk of a wish, an intention, an objective, but states that the European Council "decided that an agreement on the Constitutional Treaty should be reached at the European Council of June at the latest". The use of the word "should" detracts nothing from the affirmative form of the decision.
Only Italy voiced its scepticism about the given deadline. The day before, Romano Prodi, President of the Commission, had been more circumspect, with three possibilities, in order of preference: conclusion before the elections in June, or straight after the elections but before the end of the Irish Presidency (30 June), or under the Dutch Presidency, in the second half of the year. For once, the European Council was firmer, which seems to indicate a definite political will. Several Member States feel it would be better to stick to the deadline, because a decision in May would lend impetus to the elections in June: approving the Constitution would make headlines, the lead item on the news, the public would see it as a success for Europe, and it could galvanise the electorate by giving them the chance to voice their opinion on the Constitution before it is ratified nationally. This could result in success for the pro-European lists, which would be highly significant for the EP's future activities. If, on the other hand, the vote takes places against a backdrop of scepticism and disappointment, with many people abstaining, the forces of Euroscepticism would be able to clear up, becoming the strongest force in the next Parliament, with all the problems that would cause for the Union over the next five years. Elmar Brok suggested announcing that the conclusive IGC would be convened for 9 May, Europe Day (anniversary of the Schuman Declaration). How do you explain to the citizens that they are being invited to elect a new European Parliament on 12 or 13 June, and then announce that the Constitution is adopted a couple of days later? Linking both elements is greatly preferable.
The current situation. Of course, the IGC cannot be convened unless a positive result is almost assured. The Constitution wouldn't withstand a second failure; because then everything would change: with the new EP, a new Constitution and the considerably changed European Council, how would you keep the Giscard Constitution alive? If it fails, the newly-elected EP, the Commission, radically transformed in line with the Treaty of Nice and the new Summit would have their say; in practice, everything would have to start again from scratch. Efforts must therefore be concentrated on an agreement by the end of May, based on developments since December's failure. The current situation indicates that:
A. It would be incomprehensible and unjustifiable if there is no swift agreement on majority voting procedure in Council, on the basis of "double majority", tweaking the States/population percentages. All the options have already been explored. At the present time, enough of the hypothetical details, there are two principles to stick to: not making decisions harder to reach compared to the Nice Treaty, and making sure that three large countries cannot form a blocking minority on their own. Beyond a certain limit, calculations are purely theoretical; the Community reality, as the old heads know, is simpler, it is not based on the alliances of the small countries against the big ones, or on other, similar subtleties.
B. As for the European Commission, I stick by what I wrote in this column on 25 March; as Mr Prudhomme said, "it's my opinion, and I'm sharing it". If the heads of government absolutely insist on including its composition in the Constitution, agreement will only be possible on the "one Commissioner per Member State" formula, with all the future inconvenience that this kind of rule will bring.
C. The hidden disagreements should not be played down. Jean-Claude Juncker said that there were still "between twenty and thirty contentious points nobody talks about". Those who fear that this will lead to a position somewhat short of the "Naples draft" are starting to get worried: speaking for the French Socialists, Pervenche Bérès took position pretty firmly. The Convention's result must be kept, without playing up the additional demands; for the time being, the main thing is to approved the Giscard draft with the additional elements agreed on in the field of defence, leaving the door open for future revisions. The real disaster would be the Constitution's not being approved. As it is, despite its gaps, it would breathe new life into Europe.
(F.R.)