(EU) EU/CONVENTION: First draft structure of future Constitutional Treaty welcomed by Convention members - Plenty of doubt about utility of stable Presidency, a Congress and the need to rebrand - VGE feels encouraged

Brussels, 29/10/2002 (Agence Europe) - The first debate at the European Convention into the initial draft structure of the future Constitutional Treaty showed that the Convention members are ready to get their teeth into the subject on the basis of this "working base" (as it was often termed) that was broadly welcomed, despite a few doubts (see yesterday's Europe, pp 5 and 6). Elmar Brok (CDU) welcomed the reference to the federal nature of the EU, which did not lead to much negative reaction apart from various British Tories and constant opponents of federalism like Jens-Peter Bonde of Denmark.

The Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio highlighted the need to clarify competencies without setting them in stone, and called for the Community Method to be used wherever it could be. Commissioner Michel Barnier hailed the clear, coherent document that gave a backbone on which the muscles could be attached. Like other Convention members, French Senator Hubert Haenel stressed the importance of incorporating a reference to the role of national parliaments.
The Portuguese government representative Ernani Lopes spoke against a rigid list of competencies and the creation of a Congress, calling for the current six-monthly rotating Presidency to be maintained, and the Community Method to be strengthened. The new representative of the Dutch government (former President of the Liberal group at the EP) Gijs De Vries said it was vital to maintain institutional balance and respect or even strengthen the Commission's right of initiative, qualified majority voting on the Council and the EP's codecision. We don't need new institutions, he said (such as a Council Presidency or a Congress), but more ambition.
British minister Peter Hain said it was a good starting point, agreeing with De Vries on strengthening the institutions. Hain stressed the importance of the new Treaty being user-friendly, adding that there was no need to rebrand the EU. The new representative of the Irish government, Dick Roche, said they had learned to live with the name "European Union", adding that existing institutions needed beefing up and the current balance and rotating Presidency should be maintained. He noted that the creation of a long-standing Council Presidency would give rise to tension.
Hailing the draft document, the representative of the Finnish government, Teija Tiilikainen, regretted that it had been published before the results of various Working Groups, and called for the strengthening of existing institutions, arguing against a Congress. Dutch Christian Democrat MEP Hanja Maij-Weggen said the draft document was a source of satisfaction because it ends the pillar structure and incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights. She saw no reason for changing the EU's name and regretted the importance granted to the intergovernmental section and also to the place reserved for the European Council and the Council.
German Christian Democrat Elmar Brok talked about "relevant scaffolding" but stressed the need to reduce intergovernmental cooperation in the interests of an "integrated Europe", calling for a "Union of states and peoples". The Swedish deputy prime minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen said it was a good structure but thought was still needed about the mechanics of defence and external action policies. She was disappointed that the draft did not mention the European Ombudsman as one of the EU institutions.
Reacting to Convention members' comments, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said there would be references to national parliaments in the text, agreeing with a reference to the peoples of the EU. He said that exclusive competencies should be set out, along with shared competencies. On reference to "solidarity" as one of the values the EU was based on (this issue was raised by Spanish deputy Josep Borrell), VGE said he had come up with a potential slogan "Freedom, Justice and Solidarity", and that solidarity was a central factor in European society and the EU's relations with the world. He stressed that the Praesidium would be unveiling a new version of the draft structure at the beginning of 2003.

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing stressed creation of a Congress and said debate was encouraging

At the press conference, VGE said he felt encouraged, and that the architecture had been very widely appreciated. He said they had seen that this roadmap was the one they should follow, pointing out that several Working Groups still had to present their reports. The Convention will then pursue work on the basis of these results and a draft architecture that will have been completed by "beginning to fill in the blanks", on the basis of a compromise proposed by the Presidium should it be necessary.
"The institutional debate will be held in plenary", he made a point of stipulating, adding that it would be a question of considering how best to exercise competencies. "A power struggle (between EU institutions: Ed.) does not interest us", he insisted. Regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights, he considered that the only question that remained to be decided was that of its place, "which is not a substantive problem but one of presentation". He then explained that it was difficult to include the whole text of the Charter, which has 50 Articles, in the first part of the constitutional treaty that itself should not exceed 50 articles.
Asked about how the idea of the Congress was received, Giscard d'Estaing considered that the proposal had been received "as new ideas always are, with questions and at times concerns", but he again drew a parallel with certain proposals of Ms. Stuart's working group (see below) and placed emphasis on the need to provide the Union with a broader representative structure, speaking of, in English, a "European political constituency".
According to VGE, there was general agreement over the fact that such a structure should not have any legislative powers and that further reflection was needed on the subject. That should also be the case regarding the long-term Council presidency, as it was not realistic to have 27 successive presidencies, of six months each. "Continuity of work and implementation of decisions presuppose a stable presidency", said Giscard d'Estaing, noting that, at the European Council of Brussels, all the small countries had spoken out against abandoning the rotating presidency.

Source: Agence Europe, 30.11.2002, www.agenceurope.com.