Dual presidency: the ‘no’s have it” “

To discuss the recent session of the Convention on the future of Europe and in particular the Franco-German proposal of dual presidency of the EU, SirEurope met Giorgos Katiforis (PSE), member of the Presidium and representative of the Greek government (which now holds the revolving presidency of the EU), and Ana de Palacio , Spanish Foreign Minister and representative of the Spanish government within the Convention. Mr. Katiforis, what’s your comment on the session and on the Franco-German proposal? “The Convention’s agenda included the first discussion of the institutional questions: the organization of EU institutions and the their respective decision-making process. The Franco-German proposal, included in this agenda, is based, on the one hand, on the election of a President of the permanent European Council (for a period of two and a half years, renewable) and on the consequent conferral of greater powers on the Council, and on the other on the nomination and election of the President of the Commission by the European Parliament. A “dual Presidency”, therefore. On the first day of the session there were 7 interventions in favour of this proposal, 7 which I would define as neutral and no less than 40 against. In my view, the proposal is dangerous, because it risks weakening the prerogatives of the executive Commission and implies a return to the intergovernmental method which has repeatedly demonstrated its limitations. It would also be a limitation for small states, both current members and those of an enlarged EU. With a few exceptions of individual Convention delegates, the big countries (France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom and Spain) have formed a bloc in support of the proposal. Their voice has been joined by that of Sweden and in large part also by Denmark which in its current premier Rasmussen has a potential candidate for the “superpresidency” of the Council. The rest of the governments and members of the Convention did not seem to me to have shown any great enthusiasm for the proposal”. Ana De Palacio, what’s your view of the joint proposal? Is a clash between big and small countries foreseeable on the dual presidency? “It’s an interesting proposal. In the Convention we all agree on the need to achieve a more permanent Presidency of the Council and on the maintenance of the institutional triangle Council, Parliament, Commission and of the proper balance between these organs. As regards the second part of your question, I believe that the document seeks to achieve just this balance between big and small countries, between federalists and supporters of the intergovernmental method. To ditch in toto one of these two aspects is inconceivable. The first reaction to the proposal was emotional: after a deeper analysis, people will understand that a permanent Council is essential for solving a large part of the Union’s institutional problems. We ought, rather, to focus attention on the more delicate aspect of the question, namely the proper relation between President of the European Council, President of the General Affairs Council and the future Foreign Minister of the EU. I also think that the role of the Convention and of the individual Convention members is distinct from that of the member states: if we want our work to be successful, we must be realistic and concentrate on those proposals that will be accepted by the intergovernmental Conference”.