Burning issues still to be resolved as Europe awaits ‘white smoke’ over treaty

By Stanley Crossick

Date: 04/12/03

NO WHITE smoke was emitted at the end of last weekend's ministerial conclave in Naples, but nor was there any black fire: indeed, there was more progress than expected.

Any assessment must, however, be cautiously made as, in the light of the wrangle over the stability pact, the negotiating atmosphere is not at its best.

The question, though, is to what extent do the results of the conclave pave the way for the intergovernmental conference (IGC) to be concluded at the summit in Brussels on 12-13 December?

The Naples meeting more or less reached broad "political agreement" on the agenda to be presented to the EU leaders, but not on the overall package of decisions.

The final preparatory ministerial meeting will be heldin Brussels on Tuesday (9 December).

The Italian EU presidency's proposal of 25 November forms the basis for a broad compromise, identifying the issues raised in the draft constitutional treaty which appeared to need either clarification or amendment.

However, highly disputed issues, such as majority voting in the Council of Ministers and the composition of the European Commission, were not addressed. Moreover, some of the amendments proposed by the presidency were both new and controversial.

Issues requiring to be resolved on the draft constitution fall within five broad categories:

• Vital Part I (constitutional) issues of substance
• other Part I issues of substance
• Part III (policies)
• Part IV (general and final) protocols and declarations, and
• revision procedure for Part III.

The only remaining issues of real importance appear to be those relating to Part I, the extension of qualified majority voting (QMV) to common foreign and security policy (CFSP) decisions in Part III and the procedure to revise the treaty.

However, it is a pity that the presidency has found it necessary to pander to the needs of individual member states in relatively minor matters, sometimes doing so through protocols and declarations, which both complicate the interpretation of the provisions and make the text more difficult to read.

The final outcome of the IGC would appear to depend on agreement over:

• The mechanism to determine QMV
• the composition of the Commission
• the defence provisions, and
• the revision procedure

On the subject of QMV, Spain and Poland continue to cling to the unwieldy Nice formula in Council, notwithstanding that there is a clear majority for the Convention formula, ie a simple majority of member states representing 60% of the EU population.

The UK's late support for the Nice formula is puzzling. It would be sad if the unreasonable obduracy of Spain and Poland paid off: an untidy compromise delaying the voting change for five years is always a possibility.

Meanwhile, there are substantial objections to the Convention limit of 15 voting commissioners, and some surprise that the presidency maintains its support for a two-tier Commission of voting and non-voting members.

The smaller member states are likely to maintain their insistence on each having its own voting commissioner, even though only an efficient and effective Commission serves their interests.

If one voting commissioner per member state is agreed, the treaty should give the European Council the right to modify these arrangements, and appropriate rules must be laid down to streamline the Commission's internal functioning.

On defence, the Convention's collective defence clause will not be agreed, but a compromise wording is still possible. However, considerable progress was made over structured cooperation in defence and, here, agreement is very likely. Together with the plan to create a separate EU military planning facility, allowing operations to be conducted independently of NATO, this could be a very significant development.

The presidency is to be congratulated on keeping the revision procedure issue on the agenda. Provision to revise Part III by the approval of less than all the member states is desirable but not politically achievable.

Agreement could well be reached, however, that such amendments can be agreed by QMV in the European Council, followed by approval of all the member states, in accordance with their respective constitutional rules.

The outvoted member states would be expected to use their best endeavours to ensure approval.

And it is not unreasonable that a unanimous decision in the European Council, to move an issue from unanimity to QMV, could be blocked if several national parliaments object. But the number must be reasonably large and they must represent a material percentage of the EU population.

On other issues, the presidency has been compelled to accept the retrogressive step of rejecting the creation of a Legislative Council, but this decision can be reversed later without a treaty amendment.

The presidency's paper surprisingly proposed that the Council act by QMV in adopting CFSP decisions on a proposal from the EU Foreign Minister, without the intervention of the European Council, as contemplated by the Convention test.

This will clearly be rejected. Perhaps it is too Machiavellian to wonder whether the provision has been introduced expressly to be rejected, but so as to retain the existing Convention QMV provision.

In the final analysis, much will depend upon the firmness and sensitivity that the Italian presidency employs from now until the conclusion of the Brussels summit.

And this could well substantially hinge on the "Berlusconi factor"; the Italian prime minister is prone to mishandling people. Fortunately, the new treaty will be signed in Rome, whenever the IGC is concluded, and this removes the risk of deliberate delay in order to deprive him of his new Treaty of Rome.

Missing from the conclave conclusions is a clear commitment by the 25 member states that the IGC will end at next week's Brussels summit.

There are only a limited number of items on the agenda, all of which have been discussed at length at the Convention and also in the IGC itself. Whether the conference ends this month, or runs until March or June of 2004, it will inevitably end with a late-night negotiating session.

Next year is a very difficult year for the EU institutions. The citizens of Europe will be electing a new European Parliament and voting in a number of national referenda on ratification of the new treaty.

Months of wrangling over arcane issues, such as QMV and the allocation of Parliamentary seats, is not the way to arouse the interest of citizens in European integration.

It would make so much more sense to clear the decks and agree the new treaty in December and prepare for a thorough, truly European, public debate in the member states.

Citizens should have before them a clearly stated shared vision of the future of Europe and a workable, transparent institutional framework.

Let us hope that there will be sufficient fire in the Brussels European Council meeting to burn the ballot papers of the summit leaders, so as to produce the white smoke that European citizens need and deserve.

• Stanley Crossick is the director and founding chairman of the European Policy Centre think-tank in Brussels.

Analysis of the IGC 2003 'Conclave' of European Union Foreign Ministers in Naples on 28-29 November 2003, at which there was more progress than had been anticipated.