Email:

mep@andrewduffmep.org

The Intergovernmental Conference has failed to adopt the Constitution. Its work is suspended until March when the Irish presidency will make a report to the Dublin European Council on how the IGC might be carried forward.

This failure of collective leadership is of such a magnitude that it is necessary to analyse why it was allowed to happen.

The Conference itself was badly prepared by the Italian prime minister. Having not had the necessary volume of bilaterals before the heads of government convened in Brussels on Thursday, Berlusconi was forced to devote most of the hours that followed to separate meetings with individual leaders or groups of leaders. The IGC met in formal plenary session for less than an hour on Friday afternoon. The conference was brought to a close at a working lunch on Saturday. There was no opportunity for collective debate on the outstanding issues. Most of the participants had no chance to align themselves with one or other faction even if they had wished to do so. Those who had brought compromise proposals were unable to table them. Ignorant misunderstandings or wilful distortions about what the draft Constitution said or meant were left unchallenged. The Presidency's important compromise proposals of 9 December (CIG 60/03 Addendum I) were not subject to negotiation or decision at the summit level.

As feared, the conference became obsessed with one issue only, namely the QMV threshold, which the Convention had set at 50 percent of the member states representing 60 percent of the population. In its series of confessionals, the Presidency appeared to offer four alternative proposals, as follows:

Faced with these ripostes, Berlusconi, who appeared more eager to talk about women and football, made no further efforts to pursue the matter.

As foreseen, Germany and France played the central role. They were determined to teach the Poles the lesson that they will not be allowed to hold the rest of the Union to ransom. Chirac and Schroeder were also outspoken in their support for the draft Constitution. They both invited Blair to reduce the number of his annoying 'red lines'.

In their parallel press conferences after the conference had broken down, both spoke of their attraction to core group politics. Chirac spoke of a 'pioneer' group that would be a motor of integration, that would 'set an example' to those who 'lack experience', and that would go forward 'faster, further and better'. Justice and home affairs, economic governance as well as 'other areas' were mentioned. Schroeder said that what emerges from the IGC failure is the logic of a two-speed Europe. Others, notably Verhofstadt, echoed this theme. Juncker said that core Europe was not an objective of the IGC but a likely consequence of its failure.

Blair clearly has no strategy to deal with the emergence of a two-tier Europe. He is pleased with the deal on structured cooperation in defence, brokered with France and Germany - although that deal also has to be confirmed as part of the overall, eventual, constitutional package. Blair said he would consider the UK's participation in other core groups depending on the subject matter. His involvement is highly unlikely, however. Indeed Blair's precious 'red lines' have neatly defined where the integrationists will first try enhanced cooperation, namely:

The UK will remain excluded from the eurozone for many years and will be unable to prevent the closer coordination of economic and budgetary policies between those who have joined the single currency.

Blair's claim that he has successfully 'banked' his 'red lines' is based only on a statement at the closing lunch by Berlusconi, a chairman whose own credit-worthiness is less than universally acknowledged. Blair has no formal agreement and no text to wave at the House of Commons. He knows perfectly well that the core group is hostile to most of his positions.

The in-coming Irish presidency is in a difficult position, therefore. Aherne was not privy to the Berlusconi confessionals. His offer to report back in March after consultations was accepted as the only way forward this weekend.

Many assume the IGC can only be concluded under the Dutch government. I do not share that view, for the following reasons:

• the constitutional project, for its own sake, must not be allowed to lose momentum;
• the Dutch government does not enjoy a coherent European policy, and is no more influential or experienced than the Irish;
• the Dutch presidency will at any rate be lumbered with two neuralgic issues: Turkey and the new financial perspectives; on the latter, at least, the Netherlands is an important demandeur; the intertwining of the constitutional debate with such controversial items is not propitious;
• it may be easier for the Spanish to play ball in the dying weeks of the Aznar regime than in the opening ones of his successor;
• as has always been argued, it would be far better to get the Constitution signed in time for the European Parliamentary elections in June.

In fact, Poland notwithstanding, a solid agreement on the Constitution is closer than this weekend's performance would suggest. Clever brokerage will achieve a respectable deal on the basis of the Convention's proposals. The fact that the IGC method has failed makes both the process of the Convention and its outcome even more attractive. For example, nobody now disputes the need for a full-time and more professional presidency of the European Council!

The Irish certainly need help in getting EU governments to engage in the debate on CIG 60/03. Who more competent to help than the Convention, to whom all the arguments are profoundly familiar? It would certainly be possible for the Council to summon a meeting of the Convention, under the presidency of Valery Giscard d'Estaing, to work their way through the compromise proposals and to offer advice on each of them to the IGC. Apart from the QMV formula, important outstanding questions include the size and shape of both the European Commission and the European Parliament, the scope of QMV and the organic passerelle clause, and, not least, the financial system and budgetary procedure.

It is to be hoped that agreement emerges in the next few days upon three points:

LATEST NEWS
Click here

ANDREW's WORK
in the Convention

Andrew is Vice-President of the European Parliament delegation to the Constitutional Convention on the Future of Europe.

Find the offical Site of the European Constitutional Convention here ention Here

Site designed by Kevin Wilkins and updated by Tim Huggan