Europe of the “vanguards”” “

The heads of State and of government of the European Union will meet in Laeken (near Brussels) on 14 and 15 December to give the final go-ahead to the process of reforming the European institutions. What are the prospects of this summit? And how may the work of the Convention be developed in preparation for the forthcoming intergovernmental Conference (IGC) for the reform of the EU treaties? We put these questions to Ferdinando Riccardi , leader writer and commentator of “Agence Europe”, the press agency that has provided information on EU activities since 1952. Riccardi has been a close observer of the European Community for over forty years. The European Council of Laeken is about to open. Are the positions already defined or may there be last-minute surprises? “Given that it is a summit in which the Heads of State and of Government will participate, the agenda also includes discussion on current affairs: so also Afghanistan and the fight against terrorism. But its specific and long-awaited point concerns the opening of the process that should lead to the new institutional reform required to transform the structure of a Community founded for six members into an enlarged and therefore necessarily more efficient Union. The objective is twofold: on the one hand, to guarantee that the EU may function with 27 or even 30 member countries; and on the other, to take into account the changes in the Union’s ambitions. The next Treaty will no longer be prepared by the classical method of intergovernmental diplomatic negotiation, but by a Convention composed of representatives of the Governments, national Parliaments, European Commission and European Parliament. This is a circumstance that would have been inconceivable even a year ago, in view of the ‘jealousy’ with which the Governments have defended their own prerogatives. It is a real revolution, to which is added the other innovative feature of the continuous contact that the Convention will have with civil society. The date for the beginning of the Convention’s work (March 2002) and its duration (not more than a year and a half) have already been fixed”. What, in particular, will the European Council in Laeken have to decide on? “The Laeken summit is called to pronounce on some questions that still remain open: the choice of the President of the Convention, for example, for which a number of authoritative candidates have been proposed, including Amato, Delors and Giscard d’Estaing. Or, again, the question of its mandate: will the Convention be asked to present a single project – as called for by the European Parliament – so that the IGC does not deviate from it too much, or will it be free to propose various options for reform? The supporters of this latter thesis, including Romano Prodi and the Commission, see the eventuality of a single project in a negative light, believing that any possible consensus already at the level of the Convention could only be achieved to the detriment of the Union’s ambitions even before the real negotiations begin between the Governments. And perhaps they have a point”. What ought to be recommended by the text that the Convention will submit to the Intergovernmental conference? “The Convention ought to be in a position to recommend how the Institutions may be reformed in such a way as to make them more efficient and better suited to an enlarged European Union of 27 countries. In substance, that means choosing between the intergovernmental method and the Community method. The first method has existed for centuries: Governments decide on the basis of alliances, but it does not give any guarantees for peace and security, as demonstrated by history. The second, by contrast, is based on the institutional quadrilateral of Council, Commission, Parliament, Court of Justice in such a way that the deliberations reflect not the national but the general interests, irrespective of the importance of the individual States and at the same time avoiding the formation of ruling elites or ‘rule by the strongest'”. What “weight” is this text supposed to have? “It will in any case be up to the IGC to make the final decisions, since no one outside the Governments can claim to decide on matters that are still subject to national sovereignties and not yet held in common. The IGC is therefore indispensable for the democratic nature and representativeness of the decisions taken. Despite that, recognition of the effective ‘weight’ of the work of the Convention will not be lacking: due to the very nature of the Convention, the Governments will not be able to ignore its proposals. The Governments themselves, the national Parliaments that must ratify the Treaty, and the European Commission and Parliament that bring with them a wealth of experience and know-how, and a presidency of prestige, will, after all, also be represented in the Convention. There is however a risk that, for one reason or another, one or more Governments or national Parliaments may decide not to align themselves with the others on some issues. That’s why the system that makes it mandatory for decisions to be ratified by all the Parliaments, as prior condition for the entry into force of a Treaty, needs to be changed. The principle according to which no country should be forced to accept more integration that it desires needs to be upheld, but with the proviso that no country should have the power to veto the determination of the others to go ahead. It is the Europe of the vanguards, open to everyone, not the Europe à la carte“. What forecasts can be made about the future institutional architecture of Europe? Constitution, Federation, or other? “I would like to make four points. First: it is indispensable to maintain and extend the Community method, the real guarantee to prevent conflicts and any anti-democratic deviations. Second: the intergovernmental method does not give guarantees, at most it may constitute a temporary transition. Third: the so-called ‘Federation of Nation-States’ has been criticized from the juridical viewpoint as a contradiction in terms: perhaps so, but I see it more as a political message: there is the word ‘Federation’, which implies the federal character of some aspects of European integration (such as the European Central Bank or the Common Agricultural Policy). Then there is the term ‘Nation-States’, which clearly indicates that the objective is not a European superstate. On the contrary, the identity, culture and traditions that compose the Union must be safeguarded. My fourth and last point concerns the ‘Constitution’: the term gives rise to some misgivings, because by Constitution is usually meant a Pact between Citizens who share the same lifestyle, the same conditions. Perhaps it would be better to speak of ‘constitutional Treaty'”. How do you evaluate the debate that has been going on in recent weeks on the future of Europe? “The problem consists in understanding whether the way in which the process within the Convention and the IGC will be pursued, has been prepared with the sufficient participation of public opinion. Each country has been invited to organize its own internal debate to permit civil society to express itself on the matter. It is difficult to give a uniform answer to your question, because the national debates have been so different. Nonetheless, there will be a way for public opinion to make its voice heard later. It has to be said, however, that it’s never easy to get passionate about institutional themes: Europe is reproved for being a bit remote, but what the citizen demands (food controls, scope for freedom, justice and security, safe transport, just to give one or two examples) are already found in EU programmes. The institutional reform must succeed if everything is to become a reality. Delors said that fine instruments are of no use unless one knows what to do with them, but that big ambitions are of no use either unless one has the necessary instruments with which to realize them. To realize the Union’s ambitions, strong institutions are needed”.