IGC reveals split over voting rights

Date: 09/05/1996

By Rory Watson

FOREIGN ministers will be confronted with the painful choices that lie ahead in the search for ways to increase the Union's efficiency and credibility when they meet in Brussels next week.

As the Intergovernmental Conference representatives approach the end of their first lap in the Maastricht reform marathon, conflicting positions on one of the most important issues which they face have already been staked out.

Agreement on the need for more flexibility in Union policy and greater use of majority voting have run up against concern for national sovereignty and fears of a two-speed Europe.

IGC representatives have already indicated that changes to decision-making procedures are necessary if an enlarged Union is not to sink into paralysis. But IGC group chairman Silvio Fagiolo has warned that the negotiations still have a long way to go and will become more complex and difficult as the talks advance.

“We discussed whether we should take each case on its merits or take a group of subjects. This was only an initial discussion, but a majority view emerged that each article should be discussed in turn. In other words, it will be a laborious task,” he said this week.

Fagiolo confirmed that the introduction of greater flexibility into Union business would be “one of the salient features of the IGC”, but also made clear that most issues are still unresolved.

“The questions remain whether a choice of this sort could be taken unanimously or by a majority vote and what implications it would have for EU institutions. We do not all see eye to eye over this, but we all feel it is necessary to tackle the problem and to identify a few criteria allowing flexibility to be built into the treaty,” he said.

All agree, however, that the new flexibility would have to respect certain principles. It would not be allowed to undermine existing EU treaties, legislation and case-law. It would have to leave open the possibility of other member states rejoining colleagues who had decided to press ahead in certain policy areas at some point in the future.

The IGC group has been somewhat more successful in finding common ground in its efforts to bring greater efficiency and effectiveness to the Union's foreign policy.

“There is general consensus that the EU's foreign policy should have some analysis mechanism which will be more effective than the embryonic system we have now. This would anticipate potential crises and monitor the international situation. It would not be just the sum total of national forecasts, but would bring a truly Union dimension,” explained Fagiolo.

He also indicated that “a very broad majority of member states” now favoured finding ways around the need for unanimity on foreign policy matters. Support is growing for unanimity to be kept for issues of general principle, leaving their actual application to be implemented on a majority basis.

Less clear is what will happen to the idea of appointing a new Mr or Mrs Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) designed to project a stronger Union external personality to the world. No consensus has yet emerged on whether such an appointment should be made or, if it was, how the system would work.

The IGC negotiators will next week continue their analysis of the flaws in the Union's current arrangements for reaching joint defence and security positions. France has already indicated it considers this a key element in the reform of the Maastricht Treaty.

“We want Europe to have the foreign policy of a respected power which can act militarily if necessary,” said French Foreign Minister Hervé de Charette at a meeting of Western European Union ministers in the UK this week.

Any hopes that Europe's regional and local representatives might have had of seeing the IGC negotiations result in an increase in their role in the Union appear likely to be dashed.

In response to a specific question about the future of the Committee of the Regions, Fagiolo confirmed: “There was some talk of reinforcing the role, but this is only a minority view.”