Wise men’s report merits close scrutiny

Date: 21/10/1999

The initial reaction from EU governments to the report drawn up by former Belgian Prime Minister Jean Luc Dehaene and his fellow 'wise men' on the next round of treaty reform talks has been lukewarm at best, and hostile at worst.

That is hardly surprising. After the bruising round of negotiations which led to the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty two years ago, member states are understandably reluctant to set their sights too high this time around - not least because they know that reaching deals on the key issues which they have already agreed to tackle will be enormously difficult. But this does not mean that all of the ideas contained in the Dehaene report should be dismissed out of hand.

The suggestion that the treaty should be split into two, allowing changes to be made in some areas on the basis of a 'super'-qualified majority vote and without going back to national parliaments for approval, appears to be a non-starter. It may have the laudable aim of avoiding the need for frequent Intergovernmental Conferences and the long ratification process which is now required before treaty changes can be implemented, but governments simply will not accept any loss of their right to veto treaty changes and would face a huge backlash at home if they gave up their parliaments' right to have the final say.

Other ideas, however, deserve closer scrutiny. Given, for example, that the Amsterdam Treaty established the principle that MEPs should have an equal say with governments on proposed legislation agreed by majority vote in the Council of Ministers, it is surely right to extend this to any new areas where national vetos are abolished at the end of this IGC.

The call for treaty changes to boost the European Commission president's powers, giving him “more effective” influence over the make-up of his team and making it a treaty requirement for Commissioners to resign if asked to do so by the president, are also worthy of serious consideration. The problems which Prodi encountered in his efforts to resist pressure from some member states to accept their choice of nominee and appoint them to particular jobs demonstrated the importance of enshrining these powers in the treaty.

Dehaene has done a good job in setting out the case for a more ambitious IGC agenda clearly and effectively. His argument that the enlargement process is moving faster than at first envisaged, and that EU leaders should therefore opt for a more comprehensive set of reforms than originally planned, is compelling. That is not to suggest that all the recommendations in the wise men's report should be taken up. Some are political dynamite and others might not be workable. But it should be read carefully by Union leaders, as it sets out many of the issues which will have to be addressed sooner or later.