So far Member States have not indicated other themes for IGC other than three leftovers from Amsterdam - MEPs call on IGC to discuss security and defence and suggest method for greater involvement of EP - Importance of preparatory stage

24/09/1999 (Agence Europe)

Ambassador Satuli, President of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, was urged, on Wednesday afternoon, by members of the European Parliament constitutional committee chaired by Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra), to do everything possible so that the Finnish Council Presidency shows proof of dynamism and imagination, and even a certain adventurous spirit by tackling the preparation and initiation of the next Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reform. The scope and the method of the new IGC were at the centre of debates. On the subject of the magnitude of reform, Mr Satuli mainly pointed out that, so far, no Member State has cited questions which, in its opinion, should be raised during the next revision of the Treaty, other than the "leftovers" from Amsterdam mentioned in the conclusions of the Cologne Summit. Mr Napolitano commented that it would be difficult to consider the Conclusions of Cologne "so rigidly focused on three points", like "a Bible". These conclusions give three

points for institutional reform: the composition of the European Commission, the weighting of votes in Council and a "possible" extension of qualified majority. As far as the method is concerned, Mr Satuli mainly said that the constructive contribution by Elisabeth Guigou and Elmar Brok (European Parliament representatives in the process which led to the Amsterdam Treaty) will no doubt be "kept in mind" by Member States and could influence their position concerning the involvement of the Parliament in the new institutional reform. "We must not just be those 'asking'", said Dutch Christian-Democrat Mrs Maij-Weggen in this connection, noting that the Parliament also has "political levers". Thus, with a binding EP opinion on the accession of new members to the European Union, she considers it can decide to block the next enlargement if it considers that the results of the IGC are not satisfactory.

The Committee on Constitutional Affairs has appointed its joint rapporteurs on the next IGC: Nea Demokratia member Giorgios Dimitrakopoulos and German Social-Democrat Jo Leinen - and plans to have a draft report available during its session on 13 and 14 October, said Mr Napolitano. We recall that the joint-rapporteurs on the European Charter of Fundamental Rights - which was discussed by several MEPs in the context of the IGC - are Austrian Green member Johannes Voggenhuber and British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff.

Ambassador Satuli, who, as Mr Napolitano recalled, had been the personal representative of his minister during Amsterdam negotiations, and takes part in meetings of the Helsinki cabinet each week, took stock of the situation on:

1) IGC preparation. The report on the questions to be settled during the next IGC and on the possible solutions, expected for the Helsinki Summit in December, come under the Presidency's responsibility alone, said Mr Satuli, who stressed the challenge represented by the need to elaborate a comprehensive report that adequately takes into account the positions of Member States, the Parliament and the Commission and which, at the same time, are "realistically ambitious". The Presidency has "free reins" in this phase, noted Mr Satuli (and Mr Napolitano felt that this was a "fortunate choice" by the Cologne Summit). He pointed out that he has already begun, with the Permanent Representatives of Member States, a "technical" consultation that will be followed up, in October and November, by a series of bilateral "political" consultations, with the Member States, the Commission and the Parliament.

The scope of the next revision of the Treaty. Acknowledging that some would like a "substantial reform agenda" while others would like to limit themselves to the three questions still outstanding from Amsterdam, Mr Satuli recalled that the Conclusions of the Cologne Summit indicate that, other than these three issues, the next IGC will be able to deal with other questions that should be discussed in order to achieve successful enlargement. At this stage, the Presidency did not hear any Member State indicate other issues that it would like to introduce in the Conference agenda. In the "technical" conversations with his colleagues, Personal Representatives, it has so far been question of the following points on the basis of a Presidency "non-paper": a) the size and the composition of the Commission, and also questions affecting the internal structure and working of the Commission and the individual accountability of Commissioners; b) the weighting of votes in Council and above all the introduction of a double

majority (States and number of inhabitants), as well as the threshold to be set in order to achieve qualified majority; c) the link between the size and the composition of the Commission and weighting of votes in Council. At this stage, we are not yet trying to resolve these problems, "we are not negotiating", said Mr Satuli.

The organisation of the Intergovernmental Conference. The Helsinki Summit should mainly decide: - the date for convening the IGC; - the formal procedure to be followed to convene it; - the form that Parliament's "involvement" in this process should take. "We must find an efficient method of work" in order to involve the Parliament, but we have not discussed this in our internal discussions, said Mr Satuli, who specified that the issue should be settled before the IGC is convened.

This Parliament is no longer the Parliament of the Single Act or of Maastricht, but the "Parliament after Amsterdam", said Mr Mendez de Vigo (who was co-rapporteur, with Mr Tsatsos, on the Amsterdam Treaty). The report by the Finnish Presidency will be of extraordinary importance, as it will determine the unfolding and the results of the IGC, he said, urging the Council to "bring in an in-depth reform" to avoid beginning everything all over again in four or five years' time. In his view, the negotiations should also cover security and defence identity. This is a theme which "sticks out a mile", Ambassador Satuli replied, recalling that the Cologne summit gave the Council the mandate to define the European security and defence dimension, so that the EU may play a role in crisis management, including military crises. Mr Satuli remarked that there is already "parallel discussion" on this subject. He added, however, that "whatever the institutional conclusions" of this discussion, it will probably be necessary t

o wait for the French Presidency (second half of the year 2000), even if "we may be able to see some first traces" of conclusions in Helsinki. Mr Mendes de Vigo also questioned Mr Satuli on the role of candidate countries in this process. The Coreper president told him that, during the preparatory phase, they will be "fully informed" and "heard".

British Labour member Mr Corbett, who noted that the question of the scope of the IGC seems to be "a little bit open", encouraged the Member States to go further as, he said, this will perhaps be "the last chance" before the next enlargement to carry out the necessary reforms. One must not fear that, by enlarging the agenda, one will seek "massive" extension of Community powers, added Richard Corbett, who took as an example the same sort of extension for security and defence and the provisions on trade (former Article 113). Even the Court of Justice "discreetly" states it will need certain "structural reforms", noted Mr Corbett. As far as the method is concerned, he asked whether one might not apply for Treaty revision procedures similar to that proposed for the Charter of Fundamental Rights which implies the participation of actors other than Member States. Mr Dimitrakopoulos (EPP, GR) quoted Mao-Tse-Tung, by affirming with regard to institutional reform and enlargement: "let's clean the kitchen first and t

hen invite our guests". "I do not think it is only necessary to clean the kitchen, but also to rearrange some furniture before inviting them", commented Ambassador Satuli. "Cleaning the kitchen" means "looking into all the institutional arrangements", said Mr Dimitrakopoulos, who mainly noted that, as far as the European Commission is concerned, one should not restrict oneself to discussing its composition but "as my friend Jean-Louis Bourlanges" says, it is also necessary to discuss the capital question of what the "future of the Commission" should be. The other joint rapporteur on convening of the IGC, German Social Democrat Mr Leinen, noted that citizens are in a state of "total darkness" about the meaning of European institutions. He spoke of the "constitutionalisation" of the process under way (European Commissioner Michel Barnier used this term during the hearings, he recalled). He said he had heard that the IGC will be convened for March and hoped that things will start moving between the "winter in F

inland and the springtime in Portugal" (the next EU Council Presidency).

Green member Monica Frassoni (Italian national elected in Belgium) asked Mr Satuli what would happen if the Parliament adopted a tough, opposing position on the subject of the IGC. Andrew Duff, Liberal Democrat, on the other hand, insisted on the need for a "fresh approach" during the forthcoming Treaty revision. He said that what is needed is "political direction" and not a "technical approach", and asked: why not take the Commission's White Paper (Ed.: Wisemen's Report expected for 14 October) as a basis for an "informal co-decision procedure" between Council, Commission and Parliament, and make this a "public exercise?". The Commission's contribution to the process will certainly include a reference to the report by the Wisemen, but the discussion on arrangements for the IGC will not take place until after the Helsinki Summit, replied Mr Satuli. Mr Duff asked why such an important reform should be "wrapped up so fast". Mr Satuli replied that the Amsterdam experience has shown that the last IGC was "too lo

ng" and that a six-to-nine-month IGC would be "reasonable", on condition that it is well-prepared.

Council and Parliament should work together to prepare public opinion, felt British Conservative Mr Beazley, while Mr Dupuis, Belgian elected member of the Lista Bonino, ironically said: "I congratulate the Council for having already won the side; with one masterstroke it proposes we should, without any legal base, participate in the drawing up of a European Charter of Fundamental Rights ( ). We are going to keep fighting to see whether we are content to have seven members participating or fifteen, like the Council, to produce something without any legal basis. Parliament will be very busy, while the Council will continue working on its three points of the IGC." Olivier Dupuis also suggested, to keep from blocking possible progress on European security policy, that discussion on this subject should be kept separate from discussion on defence policy. This view was echoed by Spanish Socialist Mr Carnero Gonzalez, who also asked whether the Council might not decide, even if this is not legally foreseen by the T

reaties, that Parliament's opinion on the outcome of the reform would be "politically binding". Citizens expect something of Europe and "we have to transform citizens' requests into institutional reforms", said Mr Carnero. Mr Poos, former (Socialist) Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, said he could put himself in the shoes of the Council President who, at this stage, cannot speak for the Council as a whole. And he made a suggestion: Why not take what would be a "small step forward" for the Council but "a breakthrough for Parliament" by deciding that Parliament's representatives at the IGC "can attend ministerial meetings on a permanent basis"? Jacques Poos also underlined the capital role of the national parliaments, to avoid last-minute "unpleasant surprises" during parliamentary ratification of the outcome of the IGC. Lord Inglewood, British Conservative, brought up the same problem, recalling that it is up to the House of Lords. Mr Satuli replied -explaining that he was not stating a Council position, but a

Finnish national position- that the best way of involving the national parliaments in EU work is the "relationship between the government and the national parliament". Speaking in French (after speaking English earlier), Mr Satuli said it would be "relatively artificial to try to create bodies" in which representatives of national parliaments would participate. Preparation of the IGC "will not be all that intergovernmental and the mandate we have been given allows us to consult other circles", said Mr Satuli, responding to several Members and stating that the Presidency's report would not be the result of an intergovernmental negotiation, but of a "method not so often used".

Several MEPs brought up the problem of democracy and the need to convince the public opinion. Austrian Social Democrat Hans-Peter Martin asked the Presidency how it intends to "include public opinion" in the process and Austrian Green Joannes Voggenhuber, speaking of a "democratic crisis" in the Union, observed that the Commission and Parliament were beginning to draw the lessons from this crisis, whereas the Council was not budging. Giorgio Napolitano concluded the debate by noting that there was a need, in reference to the forthcoming IGC, to make a distinction between the Union's policies and their content, on the one hand, and the institutional means needed to implement them, on the other. And in conclusion, Mr Satuli declared: as the Council does when it is lost and does not know what to do, "I will say, 'The Presidency wil reflect'".