Countdown” “” “

The intergovernmental Conference (IGC) is approaching its crunch and already the summit of heads of state and of government, scheduled to be held in Brussels on 12/13 December, can be glimpsed on the horizon. On that date European citizens will know if the Union is able to provide itself with a Constitution in time for its enlargement from 15 to 25 members, already scheduled for 1st May 2004,and before the elections to the Parliament in Strasbourg, to be held in all the member states of the EU between 10 and 13 June. The IGC in deep water? Opened in Rome on 4 October in an upbeat atmosphere, the IGC is now going through a problematic phase: the draft constitutional treaty prepared by the Convention on the future of Europe is showing various limitations and its approval without further ado would dissatisfy too many European “players”: in primis some states that, for various reasons, have requested substantial amendments to the text signed by Valery Giscard d’Estaing; the Commission headed by Romano Prodi; and the European Parliament, which believes that a systematic attempt to dismantle its own prerogatives is underway. But critical voices are also emerging from civil society and from the Churches: it’s enough to think of the theme of democratic participation, of the problems linked to economic democracy, of the future of welfare, of immigration and, of course, of the insertion of a reference to Christian roots in the Constitution’s preamble. The objectives of the Italian Presidency. The revolving Presidency of the Union, currently assigned to Italy, is trying to draft a proposed mediation between the many aspects contested and problems raised at the IGC. Italy’s Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Roberto Antonione, explained to MEPs last week that “the central objective of the Italian Presidency is to reach, by December, a global political agreement on the constitutional text”, and then proceed to the signature of the Treaty in May next year. Any prolongation of negotiations beyond the date of enlargement and the elections to the EP “would – he said – involve two serious problems of legitimacy and transparency: on the one hand, the ‘constituent patrimony’ of the Convention would be squandered; on the other, European citizens would be asked to vote for the EP without knowing the constitutional framework of the future Union”. Antonione added that in no case would the Presidency accept a “lowest-common-denominator compromise” on the more controversial issues, which he himself spelled out as follows: “the composition of the Commission, the procedures for the choice and functions of the President of the European Council, the status of EU Foreign Minister, the extension of qualified majority vote (and the calculation of the “weighting” for each member state), and some non-institutional questions, including those of an economic and financial nature”. The objections of Commission and Parliament. The European Commissioner Michel Barnier, for his part, does not disguise many perplexities. He is the first to admit that “while the work of a juridical nature is proceeding positively, the IGC has so far made no progress at the political level”. Barnier, who praises the work of Silvio Berlusconi and of the Italian Presidency, declares that “certain governments are acting as if the Convention had never existed and refuse to approve what they themselves had agreed to, as regards economic management and the powers of the European Parliament”. Barnier adds that the maintenance of the unanimous vote in the European Council on issues of extreme importance “would condemn the Union to collective impotence”. Iñigo Méndez de Vigo, Spanish MEP, and representative of the EP in the IGC, especially contests the attempt by EU economic and finance ministers to water down the powers of the EP on budgetary matters. “To safeguard the principles on which the sharing of this function between Council and Parliament rests – more democracy, effectiveness and transparency – we need to ensure that MEPs retain this prerogative”.