Moves to broaden EU treaty meet opposition

Date: 18/04/1996

By Rory Watson

NEW common policies covering tourism and civil protection are highly unlikely to be written into the treaty which emerges from the Intergovernmental Conference on EU reform.

The clear lack of support for the idea - first floated when the Maastricht Treaty was originally agreed five years ago - emerged at the second meeting of the IGC working group in Brussels this week.

Silvio Fagiolo, the senior Italian diplomat chairing the meeting, confirmed afterwards: “I noted a considerable reluctance to broaden European policies or to go further down that road. A lot of countries were reluctant.”

That opposition is expected to be confirmed when foreign ministers hold their first IGC talks in Luxembourg next week (22 April).

“It looks as if these have become victims of the wider political need to take account of Eurosceptics. This exercise is about clarifying powers, not extending them,” said one close observer of the talks.

The lack of enthusiasm is a set-back for Tourism Commissioner Christos Papoutsis, who has been campaigning for greater EU status for an industry which is one of the Union's major employers and money earners.

It is also a disappointment for the Italian government, which has taken the lead in urging a more prominent Union role in civil protection to prevent and make good the damage wreaked by natural disasters such as flash floods and earthquakes.

Those arguing that the many different references to energy policy in the current treaty should be gathered under one heading will be equally frustrated by the disinterest.

The EU can only take measures on tourism, civil protection and energy under its catch-all Article 235. This requires the unanimous approval of all EU governments. Giving each its own specific chapter, say supporters, would underline their importance, provide a stronger legal justification for EU activity and could allow some decisions to be taken by qualified majority vote.

In contrast to the lack of enthusiasm for extending EU action in these areas, a clear majority of member states now believe that the updated treaty must make a definitive commitment to the fight against unemployment.

“This was the most important issue in the discussions. Everybody recognises how fundamentally important it is that the issue should be addressed for the success of the IGC,” said Fagiolo, adding: “The idea of including employment in the treaty was certainly accepted.”

Such early support for the idea is a success for Sweden, which first raised the issue last year. But opposition is still being voiced by the UK and, to a lesser extent, Germany, and governments are not yet agreed on the extent of EU involvement in promoting job creation.

The options facing them range from a general obligation to consult their partners on employment policy to the compulsory coordination of national measures. They are also being asked whether they wish to establish specific mechanisms to improve the Union's performance in fighting unemployment.

The possibilities include an employment observatory, an employment committee as a counterweight to the existing monetary committee, promoting the social dialogue and ensuring better coordination between the work of finance and social affairs ministers.

There is equally overwhelming backing - with only the UK opposed - for including the social protocol in the treaty. Now attached as a protocol to Maastricht and endorsed by 14 member states, it sets out a series of commitments on aspects of employment policy.

As part of the wider move to make the Union more accessible to citizens, the Italian EU presidency has instructed the Council of Ministers' legal service to examine how the existing treaties can be simplified. A similar exercise conducted for the European Parliament by Dr Roland Bieber, of Lausanne University, suggested the elimination of redundant or repetitive articles could reduce the size of the treaties by half.