Belgium: Some European diplomats fear that the agenda is over-ambitious, writes Denis Staunton, in Brussels
European leaders meet in Rome on Saturday to launch the final stage of negotiations on a constitutional treaty for the European Union.
The talks, known as an Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC), will be based on a draft text agreed in June by the 105-member Convention on the Future of Europe, which was chaired by Mr Valery Giscard d'Estaing.
Mr Giscard warned EU governments this month against tampering with the draft, suggesting that any unravelling of the consensus achieved at the Convention was doomed to failure.
"This is a fragile situation. It is quite precarious because obviously not everyone is happy with it. If you make any big changes it could bring the whole structure tumbling down," he said.
EU leaders and foreign ministers have welcomed the draft as a good basis for negotiations but each government has its reservations. As a result, Italy, which currently holds the EU Presidency, has drawn up an agenda that leaves almost all major elements of the draft constitution open to renegotiation.
The draft, which brings together the EU's bundle of existing treaties and gives the EU a single legal personality, is in three parts. The first part outlines a new institutional structure for the EU, including the creation of a European foreign minister and a full-time chair of the European Council, where EU leaders meet.
The second part comprises the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which will gain legal force for the first time if the draft is adopted. The third part is concerned with such issues as which policy areas should be decided by majority voting and which should still be subject to national vetoes. Italy hopes to complete the negotiations in eight meetings, mostly of foreign ministers, between now and mid-December so the new treaty can be signed next May, during Ireland's EU presidency.
Some diplomats fear the agenda is over-ambitious but Italian officials believe that, if enough political will is available, the task will be manageable.
The institutional changes proposed in the draft amount to the most radical overhaul in its decision-making process that the EU will have seen since its foundation.
The Commission will retain the sole right to propose legislation but the number of commissioners will be reduced to 15, with other member-states nominating non-voting commissioners.
Voting rights would be rotated among member-states on the basis of strict equality, a fact that has persuaded the Government to support the proposal. Most small countries, with the support of Mr Romano Prodi's commission, want to retain the right of each member-state to nominate a commissioner with full voting rights.
Supporters of a smaller commission, who include France, Germany, Britain and the Benelux states, argue that a commission with 25 or 30 members would be unwieldy and inefficient. Most countries believe, however, that the representation of all member-states in the commission is essential to retain the institution's efficiency.
Many small countries are suspicious of the intention behind the creation of a President of the European Council and are determined to ensure that such a figure acts as a chairman with little influence over the EU's direction. They want to retain the system of rotating presidencies in other council formations, such as meetings of finance or agriculture ministers, perhaps allowing teams of four or five countries to share the burden.
The draft proposes an increase in the number of issues to be decided by qualified majority and a change in the way such a majority is calculated. The present system whereby each country is given a certain number of votes would be abandoned in favour of a simple majority of member-states comprising at least 60 per cent of the EU's population.
The change would make it easier to achieve a majority in the Council of Ministers but some countries, notably Spain and Poland, oppose it because it would diminish their influence.
The European Parliament will become more important if the draft is adopted, as its approval will be required for all legislation decided by qualified majority. Apart from the wrangling over institutional changes, the IGC is likely to see fraught discussions about proposals to abolish the national veto in many policy areas. The Government will resist any move to abolish the veto on tax issues and has concerns about proposals to harmonise laws of criminal procedure that could threaten Ireland's unique legal system.
The Government is also uneasy about a proposal to allow a group of countries to forge ahead with closer co-operation on defence within EU structures, even if all other member-states do not approve.
Some member-states are unhappy that the draft treaty's preamble fails to mention God and are pressing for an explicit reference to Judeo-Christian values. The Government has not joined the call but says that, if a consensus emerges in favour of mentioning God, Ireland would support it.
The fact that all member-states are already familiar with one another's positions on the key issues should help to expedite negotiations. Some observers believe, however, that the consensus achieved at the convention owed much to Mr Giscard's autocratic charm and will be difficult to recreate within the IGC.
Others fear that Italy's idiosyncratic Prime Minister, Mr Silvio Berlusconi, may not be the ideal chairman for such delicate, complex negotiations and that agreement is unlikely at December's EU summit in Brussels. If Mr Berlusconi fails, it will be up to the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, to pick up the pieces during the opening months of Ireland's presidency next year.