SURVEY: IGC

Date: 05/10/1995

By Rory Watson

THE European Union is coming to terms with the accelerating tempo of political developments. Its founding constitution, the Treaty of Rome, stood unchanged for almost 30 years. Its latest offspring, the Treaty on the European Union, more commonly dubbed Maastricht, is less than three years old and already preparing for a facelift.

There is universal agreement that changes are needed, but no consensus on whether the surgery should be merely cosmetic or more fundamental. At one end of the scale stand Germany and the three Benelux countries who believe the operation, which will be carried out by the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) opening next year, should be as radical as possible. The minimalist tendency is best represented by the United Kingdom which is aiming for what one member of the former Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd's entourage prefers to call “modest success”.

Whichever view prevails, there is no doubting the striking difference of atmosphere between the 1991 Maastricht negotiations and the ones now unfolding. On that occasion political sights were set high, particularly by the European Commission and more federalist-minded governments. Talks were held in secret, wider debate was not generally encouraged and Europe's leaders led without any fear of not being followed by the public.

The sense of triumphalism and prospect of a new era, which characterised the end of the fraught negotiations early on the third day of the Maastricht summit, were encapsulated by the then Dutch Foreign

Minister Hans van den Broek. Simultaneously celebrating his birthday, he toasted the press corps with champagne.

Such demonstrative behaviour would now seem very much out of character. Caution and pragmatism are more the order of the day as exemplified by Commission President Jacques Santer, whose guiding principle of “Do less, but do it well” contrasts with the forceful spirit of his predecessor Jacques Delors.

Similarly, more effort is being directed at informing the public and stimulating debate before and not after the treaty is renegotiated. That sentiment of openness is accompanied by a professed determination to conduct the discussions in as clear and understandable a language as possible. But even with the best will in the world, the negotiations will never be jargon-free.

In 1991, when EU leaders agreed to hold an IGC five years later, they specifically pointed to four areas which needed to be reviewed. The most important was defence, with the approaching end of the Western European Union treaty. Others included re-examination of the legislative powers shared between EU governments and the European Parliament; the status of energy, tourism and civil protection policies; and the possible creation of a hierarchy of EU acts.

At the time, little thought was given to the reforms needed to ensure that a Union of more than 12 members could function effectively. But since then, enlargement has forced itself on to the agenda, not just with the arrival of three new members this year, but with the prospect of at least a dozen more in the years ahead.

Last chance

“This is the last IGC with 15 members. It is also our last chance to agree the institutional reforms needed to make sure the Union can operate in future,” explains one senior Commission official.

It is that pressure, argue the maximalists, which means that institutional reforms can no longer be delayed and should be far-reaching. The tone will be set at the annual congress of Germany's ruling Christian Democrats later this month when they are expected to endorse an ambitious programme which would prevent a single member state from blocking almost any EU policy ranging from the handling of immigration to joint foreign policy initiatives and provide more powers for the European Parliament. The support which such a stance would attract at the IGC will depend to a large extent on the strength of the traditional Franco-German alliance. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl's views on the Union are clear and struck a chord of mutual interest with former French President François Mitterrand. Whether he and President Jacques Chirac share a similar perception of Europe's future is unclear.

The 1996 IGC is different from its 1991 predecessor in the degree of preparation being invested in it. Considerable analysis went into the economic and monetary aspect of the Maastricht Treaty, but relatively little into political union. On this occasion that oversight is being remedied. Spain's European Affairs Minister Carlos Westendorp is attempting to isolate the specific issues which must be negotiated and decided on at the IGC. His Reflection Group has focussed on a handful of key topics: institutional reform, common foreign and security policy, judicial and interior cooperation and the relationship between the public and the Union. These are likely to form the core of the mandate the IGC will be given at December's European summit in Madrid. Monetary union is officially not on the table, but will inevitably influence the tone and tenor of the IGC debate.

At last month's meeting in Majorca, EU leaders agreed that the many other challenges facing the Union between now and 1999 should be handled in separate negotiations and not be allowed to hold the IGC process ransom. These involve reform of the Union's agricultural, regional and social policies, review of its annual financing programmes after 1999 and preparation of the enlargement negotiations.

The one uncertainty hanging over the IGC is its timetable. The process will certainly commence during the first half of next year, possibly in May or June, when Italy, as then EU president, will launch the negotiations with much fanfare. The view has emerged that the process should not run longer than a year at the most. Whether that target can be met will depend on domestic politics in member states and the scope governments have to negotiate.

If British Prime Minister John Major can walk a tightrope between the demands of the IGC and his Euro-sceptics, the IGC could be wrapped up early in 1997. If not, the curtain may not come down until after a British general election, which must be held by spring 1997.