Tortuous talking shop, or a masterpiece in the making

Date: 03/10/1996

FOR some, the tortuous meanderings of the complex negotiations on the European Union's future are more agonising than watching paint dry. Six months into the process, they are complaining of a lack of urgency and progress.

Others use the paint analogy to conjure up a different image. They see the Intergovernmental Conference as an elaborate picture which takes time and care to complete.

“You have to consider the whole painting. We are working on different bits of it and by the time of the December European summit in Dublin, parts of it will be more filled in than others and the picture will begin to emerge,” explains one of those at the heart of the process.

These contrasting assessments will come face-to-face this weekend in Dublin. Almost entirely at French insistence, the Irish EU presidency has been manoeuvred into holding a special one-day summit on 5 October to push the IGC process along.

Some predict a clash of opposites, with the French hare clashing with the IGC tortoise. They fear that any attempt to force the pace of the talks artificially could actually rebound and make national negotiating stances more rigid.

“We just hope that everyone in Dublin bears in mind the Hippocratic oath: 'Do not make the patient worse',” says one senior official.

But the more likely outcome is a polite stand-off, especially as just three hours are being set aside for IGC discussions at the summit. The Irish hosts consider the meeting to be a 'staging post' which will enable EU leaders to take stock of the tempo of the talks and give some encouragement and direction from on high.

“We would expect a fairly frank discussion on how they see things ahead. But we are still aiming to fulfil our mandate of submitting the outline of a new draft treaty to the December Dublin meeting,” stresses a senior Irish official.

That progress is slow is hardly surprising.

At the last IGC, governments basically set themselves a one-year target to complete the negotiations by Christmas 1991. They also had a clear agenda: to mark out, once and for all, the route to economic and monetary union and to agree as much of a political union as possible.

Such clarity is lacking in the current IGC. Government leaders launched the process with much fanfare in Turin at the end of March, but they have prevaricated over setting a target for the completion of the talks, although June 1997 still commands majority support.

There is also confusion in many minds about the IGC's true objectives. Is it fundamentally to make good the mistakes of Maastricht or to prepare for the Union's enlargement?

Despite the outbursts of impatience which have begun to punctuate the negotiations from the sidelines - but which are not echoed by the IGC negotiators themselves - most of those involved accept the different tempo this time round.

“Progress is slow, but that is normal. Now, after six months of talks, we are probably at the same point as they were in the last IGC after two to three months. But we now have 25&percent; more EU members and between 50 and 60 separate issues to examine. Then, of course, there are the UK elections hanging over everything,” explained one of those involved in the process.

Given the divisive nature of the EU debate within the UK's ruling Conservative Party, no negotiator seriously believes that the real trade-offs can take place before the British general election, which must be held by May 1997 at the latest.

Dutch European Affairs Minister Michiel Patijn, who will take over chairmanship of the IGC group in January, set out a pragmatic approach to the issue at a recent conference organised by the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels.

“The Dutch view is that you have to take as fact that the British elections will determine the end of the conference. You have to face that reality. If the elections are in May and the new government is in place two to three days later, I promise you that, as president, we will work any government of the day very hard indeed,” he said.

Whatever their personal political preferences, IGC aficionados are all praying for the elections to produce a British government with a secure majority able to take difficult decisions.

But doubts are still being expressed whether a new government, of whatever political colour, would have enough time before the Amsterdam summit in June to settle the handful of central issues which would still be unresolved. It has even been suggested it could take a further six months for the IGC to be completed.

This prospect fills negotiators with dread. Not only do they fear the process losing momentum, but any such delay would also have disturbing knock-on effects on other areas of EU activity. It would delay enlargement negotiations and possibly lead to difficult ratification procedures coinciding with national elections in France.

The Damocles sword of the British elections is not the only external threat hanging over the IGC.

In sharp contrast to the Maastricht negotiations, all those involved are acutely aware of the need to get public opinion on board and every move is measured against that yardstick.

The uncertainty and hesitancy which some see creeping into the IGC process has even led to speculation that the EU's two major motors - France and Germany - may be lowering their political ambitions for the negotiations.

Insiders deny that any such trimming of sails is taking place with the process still to reach the half-way stage.

Similarly, a solitary suggestion around the IGC table that the difficult issue of institutional reform be postponed to a future negotiation on the eve of the Union's next enlargement has won absolutely no support.

Nevertheless, the Dutch government has made clear that it is acutely aware of the dangers of foot-dragging and a lowering of sights. It considers maintaining the tempo and keeping alive the hopes expressed at the outset of the negotiations six months ago as its biggest challenge.

“We must avoid insignificance. If we have an insignificant result on institutions, then we will have ratification problems in one or more member states. Any postponement of institutional reform will sooner or later interfere with the whole enlargement process,” warns Patijn.

Despite coming under increasing fire from snipers, the IGC negotiators believe they have managed to clear some of the brushwood from the thicket of EU reform.

There is now widespread agreement on the need for, and shape of, specific treaty commitments on greater openness and transparency in the Union, fundamental rights and EU measures to tackle unemployment.

Equally, a consensus is emerging that intergovernmental judicial and police issues - immigration, visas and asylum - must be more closely integrated into full Union business.

There is also general recognition that the EU must break with the past emphasis on all countries participating in all policy areas to the same extent. An enlarged Union must allow a far greater degree of

policy flexibility, subject to clearly-defined rules, among its members.

In the final analysis, the real trade-offs, particularly on institutional reform, will come next spring or summer and in groups far smaller than the 100 or so officials who now cram themselves around the negotiating table at meetings of the IGC group.

Despite French haste, the majority view among negotiators is that the talks have their own built-in rhythm and must result in a carefully balanced package.

This view is summed up by one senior diplomat wise in the ways of IGC negotiating. “We need to give people a sense that there will be a balance. The whole structure was created over 20 to 30 years. We cannot go lopsided on one issue, but must move things forward carefully. It is a question of trying to shepherd the whole thing along.”