| Author (Person) | Davies, Eric | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Publisher | ProQuest Information and Learning | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Series Title | In Focus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Series Details | 9.12.02 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Publication Date | 09/12/2002 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Content Type | News, Overview, Topic Guide | In Focus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The European Commission has published its second submission to the Convention on the Future of Europe. The launch of the Communication on 5 December 2002 was accompanied by a presentation of its contents to both the Convention and the European Parliament by Commission President Romano Prodi. The Communication reiterates many of the proposals put forward by the Commission earlier in the year and appears to put the Commission at odds with many Member States. Amongst the more contentious proposals are that the national veto should be abolished and that the current rotating Presidency of the Council should be kept. It also proposes that the various different types of legislation currently in use should be reduced and that the European Union (the Commission's preferred name for the EU) should adopt the motto 'Peace, Freedom, Solidarity'. Background This is just one of a large number of submissions made to the Convention on the Future of Europe by the EU institutions, Member States (individually and in groups) and other bodies. The Convention is due to publish its proposals in June 2003; they will be discussed at an Intergovernmental Conference in 2004, at which the future shape of the EU will be decided. The Convention itself will produce options for the Union, it will not decide which to adopt. However, as the Convention process accelerates towards its conclusion, those trying to influence the outcome are keen to get their message across for, as the Financial Times argued in October 2002, 'consensus forged in such a broad-based body [as the Convention] will be difficult to override when EU leaders meet next year' (see For the European Commission, the result could be crucial. The Convention could, as the Financial Times put it 'aid the Commission's own, long-standing ambition of becoming a real executive, rather than a body with some executive powers. Or it could consign it to oblivion.' The protagonists are not only trying to influence the Convention itself; they are also seeking to shift attitudes elsewhere and to create alliances with like-minded parties. Although the Commission does have support for some of its proposals - particularly amongst the smaller Member states - the content of this second submission and Mr Prodi's associated speeches seem likely to upset many of the (more influential) Member States. Mr Prodi and his colleagues are in a bind. They feel bound to make the case for strengthening the Commission's role, partly because the institution is seen as protecting - if not promoting - the interests of the smaller Member States, and partly because it is seen as an objective element in the EU system, representing the Community interest rather than national concerns. It is the national governments though - the Member States - which make most of the decisions in the EU, and they will be deciding what role the Commission should play in future. The Commission's dilemma is how to achieve a balance in satisfying its own pursuit of a greater role without antagonising national governments, which feel - rightly or wrongly - that the Commission already has too much power. The Commission has long been the target of the press and of Member States' governments. The UK position, even under a relatively pro-Europe regime, is ambivalent. In April 2002 the UK's Europe Minister, according to European Voice, 'referred to it dismissively as a mere "civil service"...seemingly oblivious of the important political role assigned to it by the Treaty of Rome' (see Although the Commission's Communication was addressed to the Convention, it is arguably to the Member States that it must appeal if its own agenda is to prosper. However, this second submission to the Convention (which the UK's Foreign Office reportedly described as 'a kite-flying exercise' - see UK at odds with Prodi's Europe vision) seems more likely to elicit a negative rather than a positive response. In many ways it reiterates the Commission's earlier submission, which was itself criticised by Member States. The Commission's Communication In For the European Union. Peace, Freedom, Solidarity. Communication of the Commission on the Institutional Architecture (COM (2002) 728), the Commission sets out changes which it believes are required to the Union's institutional framework to prepare for enlargement. It is seen as a follow-up to the initial Communication of 22 May 2002, whose purpose 'was to focus thought on the European Union's objectives and tasks prior to any discussion on institutions.' Presenting the Commission Communication to the European Convention on 5 December, Romano Prodi said that it 'seeks to channel the discussion so we can get to grips with the real issues' and claimed that it 'seeks to respond to three concerns - for more democracy, more effectiveness, and greater clarity.' Using those three headings, Mr Prodi then identified a number of proposals, which can be summarised as: Measures for more democracy:
Measures for more effective action:
Measures for greater clarity:
Finally, Mr Prodi said that 'the term 'European Union', with which the citizens of Member States and candidate countries have grown familiar, encapsulates well the objectives of the European project' and should be confirmed as the Union's official name. He also invited the Convention to 'give its opinion on a common device [motto] for the Union' and suggested it could be 'Peace, Freedom, Solidarity'. Contentious issues Amongst the more contentious issues being discussed by the Convention are the EU Presidency and the national veto, two examples on which the Commission's views differ from those of many Member States and which illustrate the tensions and sensitivities surrounding the discussions on Europe's future. The system of rotation, under which a different Member State takes over the Presidency every six months, has been criticised for making the Union weak and inefficient, especially in relation to external relations. It is also seen as disruptive, with each new Presidency wanting to some extent to promote and pursue its own agenda, thus making it harder to maintain a consistent view of the Union's priorities. Rotation has, however, been defended by some (mostly smaller) Member States and by the Commission, who argue that it prevents the Union from being dominated by a few larger countries. The Commission's preference, stated in its latest Communication, is to retain the current system with some minor adjustments. An alternative view is put forward by Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg in their Memorandum of the Benelux: A balanced institutional framework for an enlarged, more effective and more transparent Union. The three say 'the system of the Council Presidency must be reformed in order to guarantee the effectiveness and the continuity of Council's activities in an enlarged Union. The status quo is no longer a viable option.' However, they reject the current proposal for a President of the European Council, suggesting instead that the Commission should chair the General Affairs Council and the External Relations Council. Despite such opposition, the proposal to create a 'President of the European Union' appears to be making headway. It is supported by the larger Member States (which perhaps justifies the smaller members' concerns), including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK. If Member States do decide to create an EU President, Prime Ministers Blair (UK) and Aznar (Spain) have both been suggested as possible candidates for the job. Ideas for a new system are still evolving: speaking early in December, Mr Blair suggested that 'We could move to some form of "team Presidency" which allows the chairs of the principal Councils to be divided amongst Member States for a decent length of time, with the more permanent Chair of the European Council to co-ordinate that team.' (see A clear course for Europe). The national veto currently enjoyed by Member States across a range of issues is also under attack. Under the present system - developed when the European Community comprised only six Member States - a single EU member can block a proposal for legislation. Although a significant change was introduced in the mid-1980's, when the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) was extended in order to ensure that Single Market legislation was adopted, the veto still applies in areas such as taxation, the Common Agricultural Policy, defence and foreign policy. Many Member States recognise the role of QMV in helping the EU make progress. Decision-making can be difficult enough with the current 15 members; in an enlarged Union of 25 Member States it will become even harder when just one country can veto a proposal. However, whilst recognising the advantages of majority voting, Member States also have their own interests at heart. France, for example, would not want to lose the veto over agricultural policy; the UK is particularly sensitive over taxation. Mr Prodi's warning that '[Unanimity] has marked the bleakest periods in the Union's recent history' is unlikely to prove sufficient for Member states to surrender the veto. A continuing debate The Commission does not see its latest submission as the last word in the debate. There will be more contributions, some made directly to the Convention and some in the form of speeches, articles and other communications (ostensibly) aimed at different audiences. For example, on 4 December the three Benelux countries issued a joint Memorandum of the Benelux: A balanced institutional framework for an enlarged, more effective and more transparent Union in which they put forward their own ideas on how to 'make the existing institutions more effective and not to make the institutional architecture more complex.' The Benelux contribution proposes a number of changes to the Union's institutions and workings. For example, it suggests that the Commission President should be elected by the European Parliament; qualified majority voting should be extended; the Commission should forward its legislative proposals and programme to the parliaments of the Member States; the roles of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Commissioner for External Relations should be performed by a single Commission Vice President. This last idea - that one person should combine the two jobs currently undertaken by Commissioner Chris Patten and the Union's High Representative for the CFSP, Javier Solana (something known as 'double hatting') - was only recently criticised by Tony Blair on the grounds that it 'would raise practical problems'. Mr Blair was also concerned that such an arrangement should not lead to the CFSP, which is currently based on intergovernmental cooperation rather than Community law, being 'Communitised'. In the same speech, however, Mr Blair himself raised another contentious issue: the prospect of Council Ministers giving details of how they voted - something which he believes would strengthen the Council and help improve people's understanding of the 'Brussels processes' (see A clear course for Europe). Whatever the reaction to the Commission's second Communication, the debate on Europe's future is bound to go on right to the last moment. Further information within European Sources Online:
Further information can be seen in these external links: EU Institutions
Eric Davies The European Commission published its second submission to the Convention on the Future of Europe on 5 December 2002. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Subject Categories | Politics and International Relations | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
