Bid to strengthen IGC report tone

Date: 16/11/1995

By Rory Watson

KEY members of the Reflection Group will spend the next two weeks trying to sharpen the thrust of the report on next year's Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) which will be submitted to the Madrid summit.

German and Italian sources have already indicated that they will be looking to harden the tone of the second draft report which chairman Carlos Westendorp presented to his 17 colleagues in Brussels this week.

“Remember this is not a final paper. It is only an interim report, giving a photograph of the work as it is today,” explained one Italian diplomat, whose country takes over the EU presidency in January.

“We haven't yet started tidying it up or focusing on key issues. We believe it should identify the main points and state precisely where member states stand.”

German sources believe that the final report, which will be presented to European heads of state and governments at the December summit, will be a more refined version of the 44-page report prepared by Westendorp.

The summit will give a clear mandate to the IGC reviewing the treaty, which is now expected to open at a special summit in Turin in March.

“I am fairly optimistic that we will get a substantial report with clear political statements set out,” said one Bonn source after this week's meeting.

The scope for such a clear political direction is expected to emerge in the shorter, 10-12 page introduction which the Reflection Group will also present to Madrid. Westendorp, in contrast to his earlier openness, has now asked his colleagues not to reveal the contents of either paper. He himself only gave the group a first insight into the political introduction over a private lunch in Brussels on Tuesday (14 November).

In contrast to German and Italian concerns, other members appear satisfied with the difficult political tightrope Westendorp has managed to tread in presenting the different views expressed over the past six months.

“We all know the devil is in the detail, but I have done my own check-list of some 40 items which I think need to be considered in the IGC and they are all covered by points in the report. No one has had their national or European concerns closed off,” said Irish representative European Affairs Minister Gay Mitchell.

Senior officials in all 15 EU capitals will spend the coming days combing through Westendorp's lengthy paper and the Reflection Group will consider possible changes at a meeting next week.

Westendorp has selected three key themes for the forthcoming negotiations: the role of citizens in the new Union, improved foreign policy capabilities, and more efficient and democratic decision-making.

In the first category, the author notes there is “a broad majority” for granting the right to information to EU citizens and an express reference to the guarantee of human rights. But the group appears to be shying away from the idea of considering expulsion of member states who fail to respect such a commitment.

Despite the general agreement on the need to improve the safety and security of individuals within the Union, Westendorp acknowledges there is no unanimity over how this should be achieved.

But he makes clear that only “a very small number” favour fully retaining the current intergovernmental approach for justice and home affairs issues.

The difficulties involved in reaching consensus on how the Union's foreign and security policies should evolve were highlighted this week when the UK blocked efforts in Madrid to bring the defence group, the Western European Union (WEU), under the wing of the Union.

Westendorp acknowledges there is little consensus within his group on whether to personify common foreign and security policy in one individual. He also confirms that members are split three ways on future relations between the EU and the WEU.

A large majority has emerged within the group for the EU's many decision-making procedures involving the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament to be reduced to just three: consultation, co-decision and assent.

But its members are still divided over the extra legislative powers to be given to MEPs, although only one, believed to be the UK, is really opposed to anysubstantial increase.