Hidden agendas at work as EPP Congress hails united stance on power sharing

Date: 24/10/02

Is Europe ready for a two-hatted leader? Dana Spinant reports from the EPP Congress in Estoril, Portugal

LEADERS of the European People's Party, the EU's most influential political grouping, called last week for a federal Union and for the European Commission's president to be elected by the Parliament.

Their manifesto for the future of Europe is set to have a major impact on the debate over reforming the Union as a majority of member states are currently led by conservative governments.

However, with the ink barely dry on the EPP paper adopted at the last Friday's Congress in Estoril, it is clear that the leadership remains divided on some of the core issues. There are whispers of hidden agendas being pursued: while some will press the case for an EU president, others will fight to have the Commission's leader as president of the Union.

Although the paper was adopted almost unanimously, behind-the-scene debates in Estoril echoed a persistent split between federalists and those advocating a more intergovernmental approach.

The most important rift concerns the presidency question: while Spain and France have been pushing for an EU president elected by heads of state, Germany and the smaller member states oppose it.

The 'compromise' reached by the Congress on the election of the European Commission's president and on the role of the European Council is being interpreted differently by each side.

On the European Council, the EPP manifesto states that it 'must have an internal structure that ensures efficient political direction and increases the visibility of the Union and its weight on the world stage'.

For French and Spanish EPP members, the words 'internal structure' open the door to a future EU president. Germans, however, insist that the text rules this out and reinforces the Commission's pivotal role, by stating that the Commission's president will be elected by the Parliament after being proposed by the European Council. 'The call for an EU president is not on the table anymore,' Elmar Brok, chairman of the EPP members in the Convention, said.

Wilfried Martens, president of the EPP, claims the document is a pure translation of the 'Community method' - an article of faith for the federalists.

However, the Estoril compromise is weakened by the fact that two of the most influential leaders, Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar and French President Jacques Chirac are not satisfied with it.

Both Aznar and Chirac have, together with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, backed the case for an EU president. As their plan has not been taken up in the EPP, they are likely to sidestep the EPP framework and push their agenda directly in the Convention.

Other key conservative leaders see things differently: they believe the Estoril compromise paves the way for merging the jobs of president of the European Commission and that of the EU president.

A single president, they say, would improve the Union's visibility and coherence and avoid a 'cohabitation' power battle between two presidents in Brussels.

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker likes the idea: 'I do not exclude a European Union president, provided that his function is well-defined in connection to that of the European Commission's president or that they are one and the same person.'

Juncker confirms that the plan is being given considerable thought in some EU capitals.

Another leading EPP member echoes that view: 'Bring together what we said about the European Council and about the election of the European Commission's president by the European Parliament, after a proposal by the European Council if you merge those proposals, you'll have one president for both institutions,' he said.

The idea of one person to chair the Commission and the Council has been put forward by Pierre Lequiller,a French member of the Convention on the future of Europe.

He proposes a president of Europe elected for five years by the European Council and invested by the Congress (gathering MEPs and national parliamentarians). 'The President will have, over time, a capacity for drive, for proposal and for implementation of the decisions taken by the European institutions,' said Lequiller, representative of the French Assemblée Nationale.

However, his proposal has met with strong criticism from intergovernmentalists and federalists alike.

'The first observations made against these proposals are based both on fears that they may lead to an intergovernmental drift and on the concern that they may create a bed of European power, beyond the control of the states themselves,' Lequiller admits.

Convention insiders reject this plan, as it would blur the boundaries between the executive and legislative functions. 'The separation of powers, which every democratic state or entity after Montesquieu respected, would be forgotten,' said one. Lequiller describes this response as 'purely theoretical'.

Supporters claim the move would bring together the two branches of the EU executive. It is largely acknowledged that, at present, two institutions carry out executive functions in the Union: the Council, which decides, and the Commission which executes.

Consequently, Lequiller claims that bringing together the Council and the Commission under a common president would create a genuine EU executive.

The idea of an integrated EU presidency has also received backing from Jacques Delors, the former Commission president.

In a study published last month, he said a genuine European executive must be based on both the Council and the Commission, under a common presidency.

Discreet negotiations to make this plan acceptable are taking place behind the scenes, with leading conservative politicians keen to win converts to the cause.

France and Germany, whose accord is crucial for a deal, are likely to accept the plan. Luxembourg is on board, Belgium is not expected to oppose it. Italy would be ready to accept any deal, given Silvio Berlusconi's ambition to have an accord on the future of Europe during his presidency, next year, so he can proclaim a new Treaty of Rome.

However, the stumbling blocks may be the UK and Spain, who have tenaciously stuck to their demands for an EU president elected by heads of state.

This issue is not set to be a conservative project: the divide is not so much left-right, but federalist versus intergovernmentalist.

An eventual compromise will depend on how the job of this new two-hatted president will be defined: will it be more a case of a president of the European Council taking control over the Commission or of a Commission president running the Council?

Major feature on the EPP's manifesto for the future of Europe, adopted at their Congress in Estoril, Portugal, 18 October 2002.