IGC baton handed over to governments

Date: 07/12/1995

By Rory Watson

THE EU institutional changes to be tabled at next week's Madrid summit are needed to ensure greater efficiency, but the Union's continued expansion will require a far more radical overhaul.

The warning was sounded this week by Spanish European Affairs Minister Carlos Westendorp as he presented the fruits of six months' work by his Reflection Group preparing for the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC).

“The institutional changes are necessary, but they will not be sufficient to deal with a Union of 27 to 30 members. We would need to do more,” said Westendorp.

His message came as France's President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl prepared for a meeting in Baden-Baden today (7 December) to agree on a joint stance for the IGC, to be set out in a letter to their summit host Spanish Premier Felipe Gonzalez.

“European construction and its new institutions will be the great affair of the year 1996,” Chirac told the French cabinet on the eve of today's Franco-German 'mini-summit'.

But as the Union already begins to turn its attention to the challenges of its next enlargement, the Reflection Group's report to EU leaders confirms just how difficult it will be to agree the institutional changes already on the table.

While acknowledging a general mood in favour of more majority voting to prevent unanimity logjams, the report notes: “One of us opposes extension on principle.” The sentence is a blatant reference to the UK.

After publishing his report, Westendorp appealed to the British government for a change of heart by pointing out that it was the introduction of majority voting which had ended the legislative stalemate and made the internal market possible.

“It would be logical to have qualified majority voting in subsidiary areas like taxation. We have to be clear. In many areas, majority voting is the only guarantee that the Union can take decisions,” he insisted.

The 59-page report examines in fine detail the range of questions which should be asked in next year's IGC. In only a few areas, however, does it reveal any unanimity among the 18 participants in the exercise. All agree that the monetary union convergence criteria should remain unchanged, that the European Commission should retain its present functions and that the revised treaty should be simpler and more accessible.

But the UK remains isolated in opposing the idea of the social chapter becoming part of EU law, arguing it would reduce competitiveness, and in rejecting any extension of the European Parliament's powers. The Group is also divided over ways to improve the Union's international role and ability to strengthen judicial and interior cooperation within its frontiers.

Westendorp denied he was disappointed by the outcome of the exercise, saying: “I am not frustrated, as I had no illusions when we started the exercise. I knew we could not reach consensus on solutions, but we could identify in common what was important to keep in the Union. We have identified the main problems and main options. Now our work is done and the IGC will have to decide which of these options is the most suitable for the Union of today and of tomorrow.”

In contrast to Belgian Socialist MEP Raymonde Dury, who suggested the IGC be scrapped because of the lack of consensus among the Reflection Group, the European Parliament's Socialist Group welcomed Westendorp's blueprint. It argued that many of the points raised by MEPs earlier in the year had been taken on board in the group's final report.

Socialist MEPs pointed to widespread support for more majority voting, a wider legislative role for the European Parliament, a treaty commitment to human rights and EU, rather than national, control over asylum, immigration and border control issues.

Westendorp's report coincides with a handful of similar exercises conducted by national governments. The Belgian, Dutch, Greek, Swedish and Danish governments have already issued their thoughts on next year's IGC ahead of the Madrid summit.