Among the uncertainties and the ambiguities that still surround the possible result of the Nice Summit, it seems suitable to submit to the readers a global and coherent vision of institutional reform, vision that has the double merit of conviction and clarity. In his latest interview, Jacques Delors summarises the key elements of the battle he lead since the start of the year for a reform of the future, with additional details over some aspects. Below is the essence of what the former European Commission President said (the division according to subject has been done by us to simplify the reading).
The weighting of votes. It will be necessary to be able to decide over the principals and not on the basis of nocturnal bargaining. The answer is not easy, but must be based on principals and not on apothecary accounts. Two issues seems to be of importance: no decision without a majority of States, as had been decided by the fathers of Europe, not without a majority of the population, as imposed by enlargement.
Majority voting. Of course, for an EU of 27 or 30 countries to work, it requires being able to vote by qualified majority on many more issues: trade policy as a whole, certain aspects of taxation, cohesion policies, problems of immigration and asylum and certain issues linked to the environment. Though we must ensure that there is no confusion. Let us take the example of taxation. The aim sought, is to adopt qualified majority for the fight against dirt money and for the management of taxation linked to the functioning of the common market, that is to say VAT, excise duties, energy taxation. Thus it is not a case of deciding upon new transfers of competence.
Formation and functioning of Commission. We must be realist. The small countries see as vital to have a Commissioner, as for them the Commission, is the heart of the EU. I hope that in Nice, the EU 15 will have the insight to define a timetable for the reduction in the number of Commissioners when the EU will have 20, then 27 members, and to firm this up by the end of the next Commission, that is to say end 2004 and end 2009. The correlation of the increase in the number of Commissioners, is that the President may name them himself and remove them if they are not suitable for the situation. The respect for three principals is necessary. The first is collegiality: all the problems raising tensions must be dealt with in plenary meeting with the Commissioner and not by delegating to the chef de cabinet. This gives rise to sometimes tense sessions, but greater coherence is created. The second principal: the Commission must help the Member States reach a consensus, majorities, it is the justification of its use in the eyes of the Member States. The third principal stems from the two prior ones: on the basis of a good collegiality and a proper ability to negotiate, the Commission can use its right to initiative to move Europe forward.
Reform of the Council. The institutional triangle of the Parliament-Council-Commission must be reborn and recreate a true General Affairs Council, distinct from the Foreign Affairs Council (presently over burdened with issues that are part of globalisation). The "General Affairs" Council will gather twice per month with the President of the Commission and the Commissioners concerned. Selecting priorities, it will enable to increase the citizen's understanding of the EU. Also it will prepare the Summits of Heads of State and Government. Certain highly dynamic Heads of Government have got it into their heads to make the European Council the core of the whole system. For them, a Community method is outdated, which I challenge. I obviously do not think that it requires removing all uses of the intergovernmental method: it can be very useful to move Europe forward. Though I know that when the Community method does not work, it leads to paralysis. We have already seen a case of it: each Council Presidency proposes new initiatives. And certain large countries take decision among themselves. Leading to the displeasure of others.
Enhanced cooperation. I prefer to speak of the "enhanced cooperation", as it corresponds to my idea of a vanguard. It seems obvious that we could not call on an EU of 30 to fulfil the aims of Maastricht. It is necessary to allow some to continue the deepening in a vanguard, according to the rules that are perfectly compatible with the main common path that is represented by the present Treaties. The vanguard cannot unravel what is done, but go further and faster with those who want to and can. There would be a Treaty in the Treaty, the common institution for the two being the Commission, guardian of the Treaties. While, of course, the vanguard would have its own Council and Parliament, formed with present members of the EP that are from the vanguard countries. EMU is also a vanguard. I am not calling for pure federalism. For defence, if their does exists a future prevention force, it does not need to be part of the vanguard. It is separate and it is not the whole defence. The vanguard can be joined at any time by those who want to, that can. Great Britain, if it wants to join, would be welcome.
Future Europe. For post-Nice, I remain in favour of a federation of Nation-States. As, as I see it, Nation-States are not fading away. In the long-term a treaty will need defining setting the respective competencies of States and Europe, avoiding too greater zone of shared competencies. Employment policy, social security, health, culture and education must remain the exclusive competencies of States.
Candidate countries. One day we shall have to achieve a large entity of at least 35 members, comprising Turkey, to which we have made promises, Ukraine, which is a very European country, let's not forget, as well as the Balkans. This will allow for the creation of an area of over 600 million inhabitants reconciling economic freedom with a minimum of rules as remedy to market excesses. This does not mean we must not offer to all shorter-term prospects. In the ongoing process, one has to know how to set deadlines for negotiations, and while waiting for accessions regular meetings of the "large family" need organising so that future Union members may be kept informed of developments in Europe. We could thus create a strong symbol in the framework of a European Conference that would meet several times a year.
(Interview with Catherine Chatignoux and Francoise Crouigneau, published in the newspaper "Les Echos" of 29 November).