Plenary ready for battle royal over future leadership of EU

Date: 15/05/03

By Dana Spinant

MEMBERS of the Convention on the future of the EU are braced for a 'mother-of-all-institutions' scrap when plans for determining who does what in the future EU are debated by the entire forum for the first time today (15 May).

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the Convention's chairman, faces the acid test in trying to forge a compromise between supporters of a full-time elected president of the European Council, and the mainly small member states which want to keep the rotating presidency.

If he fails to find a middle course, the former French president may be forced to present EU leaders at the Thessaloniki summit on 20 June with a set of options instead of a single proposal. This would weaken the draft constitution that Convention members have been working on for the past 14 months, officials warn.

"If we want the Convention to succeed, we should not present options," said former Belgian premier Jean-Luc Dehaene, vice-president of the Convention.

Another member of the agenda-setting praesidium cautioned: "It would be much easier for member states to undo a draft constitution which proposes options.

"If they have options, the heads of state and government would consider that they start from scratch with the distribution of power between institutions. The Convention's draft would then be as good as dead.".

In order to avoid this, frenetic negotiations are taking place behind the scenes to reconcile the two opposing camps. At present, seven member states and the European Commission want to keep the rotating presidency, while seven member states want to elect a European Council president who would serve a 30-month term (see table). Ten out of the 13 candidate countries are in favour of keeping the rotating presidency.

Greece, current holder of the EU presidency, is officially neutral. However, in a symbolic gesture, Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou, a praesidium member, has tabled an amendment calling for a president directly elected by the EU's citizens.

A Greek diplomat explained that Papandreou was aware his proposal is "ahead of its time" but "wanted to make a political point that we need vision and ambition in Europe".

Some 1,500 amendments have been tabled by Convention members to the proposals drafted by the praesidium on institutions and foreign policy. Most relate to the question of whether to create a new full-time president.

However, the Benelux countries - Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg - have put forward an alternative based on retaining the rotating presidency, while at the same time strengthening the Council of Ministers by streamlining its working methods. In particular, they propose that the Commission president would chair the General Affairs Council.

A Dutch diplomat said he hoped their blueprint would keep both small and large countries happy: the small would be assured of keeping a symbolic rotating presidency, and the large would therefore no longer see it as a problem. "This [weaker presidency] is unavoidable in a Union of 27 anyway," he added.

Critics of the plan warn that this scenario would allow the Commission president to fill the resulting power-vacuum at the Council. "The only president in town [the Commission president] will be the one to make the games, of course," one French diplomat said. "This is the hidden agenda."

Other high-profile Convention members, including Institutional Reform Commissioner Michel Barnier, believe the best compromise is a single EU president. Under this plan, spearheaded by MEPs Andrew Duff and Johannes Voggenhuber, the Commission president would chair the European Council. "Some want a stable Council chair, others want a strong Commission president. Why not have the Commission president as permanent chair of the Council?" said one Belgian diplomat.

A Benelux ambassador to the EU confirmed that the three countries support this, although "not openly yet, as there are some negotiations going on".

Barnier, who admits the idea is ahead of its time, is set to propose an "evolutionary clause" allowing the European Council to decide on an 'integrated presidency' at a later stage, when all its members embrace the idea.

Ideas on the future role of the EU's institutions and the future of the rotating presidency were debated by the European Convention's plenary members on 15 May 2003.