Weekly spotlight ICG/Charter

Different points of view on the challenges and the results of the summit of Nice

It is known that the issues of the composition and size of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council as well as the possible extension of qualified majority voting in the Council, are among the crucial issues on institutional reform that the current IGC must resolve. Established under the aegis of the Presidency, the summary report of 3 November on the progress made in the work of the IGC made no mention of the first two issues which are of "politically highly sensitive", just as the allocation of seats in the European Parliament.

The other "crucial" issue is that of closer cooperation, which has been on the agenda of the current IGC since the decision of the European Council in Feria (June 2000). For the record, the only attempt in the Treaty of Amsterdam to respond to the challenges posed by enlargement consisted of the insertion of new provisions on "closer co-operation" into the Treaties, aiming to provide for differentiation in the Union by allowing certain States to "forge ahead". These provisions are not applicable in the area of common foreign and security policy. Here a mechanism called "constructive abstention" is envisaged. In any event, the right of veto is recognised for every State which considers its political interests to be damaged. The "relaxation" of this measure has been on the agenda since the decision of the European Council in Feria.

According to the proposals presented by Italy and Germany on 4 October (4 October 2000), the "softening" of this measure, of which the subject is no other than "closer integration", is mainly achieved through removing the possibility for a State to block the triggering of the process. The text highlights the importance of the role of the Commission and Parliament which could not take on the role ascribed to them if closer co-operation were to develop outside the common institutional framework. The German-Italian document is also the first to make open reference to the possibility of certain States forming an "avant-garde" serving the process of integration and which is completely open for other Member States to participate at a later date.

If it seems taken for granted that the possibility of recourse to closer co-operation within the framework of the common foreign and security policy will fall under a new article of the TEU, the withdrawal of the latest text of the Presidency (9 November) should be noted, which envisages leaving to a member of the Council the possibility of asking for a question to be referred to the European Council before the Council takes a decision.

In the field of the common foreign and security policy, the note drawn up by the Presidency maintains the idea of reducing the quorum for closer co-operation when it is used to implement a common strategy, a common action or a joint position (a request to establish closer co-operation having to come from at least four Member States in the field of the security and of defence). Following the example of Italy and Germany, it is left to the high representative for common foreign and security policy to inform the members of the Council and of the European Parliament of their implementation.

Regarding its applications in the framework of the EC Treaty, Italy and Germany propose for example leaving the possibility for a group of States to develop the rights connected with European citizenship by granting the right to vote in the polls at national level. The idea that closer co-operation would be a means of avoiding the deadlocks due to unanimity is not shared by the Belgian delegation, according to which " There does not seem to be any need to limit closer cooperation solely to areas governed by the unanimity rule. There are many areas governed by majority voting in which closer cooperation might prove useful" (CONFER 4765 of 28 August 2000).The resolution of the European Parliament on the closer co-operation excludes "the possibility of employing it in the areas where the Treaties provide for decision by majority vote".

| Back |

In putting forward the position of the European Commission on the IGC, the President Romano Prodi expressed concern about the firm step backwards in the negotiations on the extension of qualified majority voting in the Council.

In this crucial dossier, closely bound to the weighting of votes within the Council, the Commission is in favour of a double majority system (of the Member States and of the European population), which would be advantageous in terms of its transparency.

The majority of Commissioners is favourable to having one Commissioner per country.

The President has announced the distribution of a text prior to the European Council of Nice on the internal organisation of the Commission and notably on the powers of its President.

| Back |

The Convention led, on 26 September, to an agreement on the content of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (convent 50 ). The members of the Convention adopted it formally on 2 October.

The Heads of State and government then adopted the document during the informal meeting at Biarritz on 13 and 14 October.

The Commission (see Communication on the legal nature of the Charter - COM(2000)644 11.10.2000) and the European Parliament are still to make official pronouncements on the text prior to its formal adoption and proclamation by the European Council of Nice.

It is likely that the crucial question of the legal status of the Charter will be pursued during the Swedish Presidency and even the Belgian Presidency.

A final decision on the issue is not expected before the European Council of Gothenburg in June 2001, or the Laeken Summit, in December 2001.

| Back |