Brussels, 27/06/2000 (Agence Europe) - The debate the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs had, on Monday afternoon, with the Belgian Permanent Representative Frans van Daele, (a member of Preparatory Group for the Inter-governmental Conference's on EU institutional reforms, gave the MEPs an opportunity to consider the idea those close to Chancellor Schröder floated last week. The plan is that once the Nice Treaty has been ratified, steps should be taken organise a new, bolder IGC in 2004. Experience has shown that one IGC leads to another,but what has to be done now is to focus on achieving an outcome at Nice that is ambitious enough to deal with the enlargement process with a clear conscience , said Mr van Daele. He added that after Nice the European integration process will of course continue . Several MEPs, such as the German Social Democrat Jo Leinen and the British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff, expressed similar views. Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra), the Chair of the

Committee on Constitutional Affairs, stressed that we cannot countenance the idea that a series of positions have already been left by the wayside and officials are thinking about holding a further IGC to deal with the Nice leftovers , such as the proposal to incorporate the Charter of fundamental rights into the Treaty. (Mr Napolitano agreed the issue is a convoluted one and referred to the reservations expressed by a major authority such as the former Keeper of the Seals Robert Badinter). The annex to the report on the CFSP the Presidency unveiled at the Summit at least stressed that any idea of revising the Treaty in the case of the Security and Defence Policy is still up for discussion, said Mr. Napolitano. Mr van Daele agreed with this as well, adding that the question of the Charter's status was still unresolved. (France seems inclined to want to postpone any decision on this, why do they want that ? exclaimed Mr Duff). As for defence policy, he found it a bit odd that a process of such importance

could continue without being echoed in the Treaty ;

On the Amsterdam leftovers Frans van Daele was anxious to point out that the question of extending majority voting was not a leftover from the previous IGC, but had been added to the current IGC's agenda solely because of the resolute stances of Italy, France and Belgium. More qualified majority voting is synonymous with more power for the Commission, he stressed. The British Labour MEP Richard Corbet wondered whether it were possible to contemplate appointing the Commission President and the European Central Bank President by a qualified majority. Mr van Daele admitted that at this stage of the European integration process he found it hard to imagine having a Commission President entering office whilst at loggerheads with one or another Member State. As for the European Commission in general, he recalled that at present, Belgium is in favour of continuing with one Commissioner per Member State. This system would help ensure the institutional legitimacy in the eyes of the general public. The elected repr

esentative on the Bonino list (Belgian elected in Italy), Olivier Dupuis welcomed this position, suggesting that a decision to have a European Commission with less Commissioners than Member States "would amount to weakening the Commission". Mr Dupuis expressed concern about the Commission's position in the second pillar, in view of the role played by the High Representative for the CFSP, and Mr van Daele said that what was involved there was a process: "For us, the High Representative is a start to centralisation" of this policy, whilst the approach of the contact groups and other groups had, in recent years, characterised an "exit from the Community system". As far as we are concerned, all of this has to converge, to be unified with the Commission stressed the Belgian Permanent Representative. .

As for the number of MEPs, Mr van Daele spoke of the need to observe the 700-seat limit already enshrined in the Treaty. However a provisional overshoot of this number might beacceptable after an initial enlargement, bearing in mind the need to return to 700 members later on . Monica Frassoni of the Green Party (Italian elected in Belgium) said that once the number of members had been increased ; it could not be reduced. Mr van Daele replied (in Italian, after speaking in turn in Dutch, English, German and French, which prompted Mr Napolitano to say, I'm sorry there was no Finnish MEP to ask you a question to see what language you would use to reply...) that the 700 figure was not "sacrosanct", but above that number, the European Parliament's effectiveness could be undermined. At the same time, just like Ms Frassoni, Mr van Daele recognised the need for a sufficient level of representation to reflect the diversity of each Member State. He referred to the "complexity and diversity so characteristic of his

own country.

As for closer cooperation, Frans van Daele stressed that Belgium, just like the other Benelux countries, is keen on loosening the current "restrictions" in the Treaty, whether these apply to the possibility, the veto or the critical mass needed for triggering it off (which should be achieved with eight or nine Member States). Provided the system is "inclusive and offers a plum role for the Commission, the closer cooperation should help create a high-tension area between a number of countries that could point the way . Mr Duff sought concrete examples of areas where the closer cooperation might apply. Mr van Daele said: "we will say it when it is the right time to achieve results", adding that: your question is politically valid, but it might said there is no need to supply such examples, as closer cooperation is already enshrined in the Treaty.[...].