The IGC should be quite simple. The difficulties will come later. Negotiation of the new European treaty within the intergovernmental conference (IGC) will not pose too many problems, as the heads of government have nearly done it all themselves (see this column in yesterday's bulletin). The like of it has never been seen before. From this point of view, the German presidency, and Angela Merkel in particular, have been sensational. However, I am still mulling over a number of aspects. For example, I have not understood whether the generalised “mutual defence clause” (which had been included in the draft Constitutional Treaty by the European Council on 18 June 2004 although it did not appear in the text that came out of the Convention) still exists, or whether it has been withdrawn. Apart from this point and several other minor points, the essential work has been done, including the legal structure of the Treaty of the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union.
The summit also adopted provisions on the participation of the European Parliament at the IGC (these do not appear in the “draft mandate for the IGC” but in the general conclusions). The Parliament will be “closely and concretely” involved in the work of the Conference with three representatives. At first sight, it seems pleased. It will formally intervene in the procedure on two occasions, first of all to give its opinion on the convening of the IGC, and then on the resulting text. Its final opinion will not be binding but may have an influence on the attitude of some national parliaments.
When all is said and done, the road towards fine-tuning the new treaty will be relatively easy, compared to the ups and downs that accompanied and, above all, followed the constitutional draft treaty.
Very fiddly management. As I have said - the difficulties will come later. It will not be a relaxing or easy task to manage some of the institutional innovations decided. Let me take just three examples (among others):
a) Role of permanent European Council president. Either the president's role will be essentially “representative”, which would not change things very much, or his powers would be superimposed on those of the president of the Commission, meaning he would need an independent staff. This brings me to the next point.
b) Managing the rotation of nationalities within the reduced European Commission of 18 members to begin with. In principle, rotation will be “egalitarian”. In some periods, there will be no commissioners who are nationals of the several large countries. How would such a Commission have real voting legitimacy? Would it run the risk of seeing its decision-making ability reduced?
c) Management of foreign policy. I find somewhat inappropriate the moaning and groaning that is going on because the Foreign “Minister” will simply be called “High Representative”. Superficial observers proclaim “we've got one already!” not understanding that the important thing is not what a person is called but what his or her new functions are: - president of the External Relations Council and vice-president of the Commission! It is this double role that will cause problems, as the high representative will have to depend on national governments albeit without (as commissioner) receiving instructions from the capitals. And the institutional upheavals evoked under points a) and b) could compromise the Commission's autonomy in its management of trade policy and financing for the poor countries.
Almost immediate debate. The difficulties mentioned above will come about once the new treaty has entered into force. Other fundamental questions will, however, be up for discussion almost immediately. These pertain to the: autonomous, strengthened and improved management of the eurozone; review of Common Agricultural Policy; future financing of the Union; Community preference (that I prefer to call “European economic identity”); and clarification, where necessary, of competition policy. Furthermore, France has just confirmed that it will call on the EU to reflect upon its borders. Jean-Pierre Jouyet, secretary of state for European Affairs, said: “We would like to see a group of the wise begin reflection on the borders of Europe by the end of the year, taking matters further than the case of Turkey”.
These different subjects will therefore be tackled well before the new treaty takes effect, and they should allow clarification of some of the fundamental directions taken by member states towards European integration. For the time being, attention is on Poland and the United Kingdom, which, to me, are very different from each other. The last two commentaries in this series will be on this, as part of an overview of the results of the summit and the impact of such results. (F.R.)