The Convention on the Future of Europe is moving into its final phase,writes Denis Staunton
For an exercise designed to bring Europe closer to the people, the Convention on the Future of Europe often feels remote from the concerns of most citizens. Today's debate on reforming the EU institutions, for example, is unlikely to quicken the pulse of Europeans preoccupied with such matters as a sluggish economy and rising unemployment.
In shaping Europe's political future, however, today's debate could be crucial in determining how power is divided between the EU and national governments and between the EU's larger and smaller member-states. It could also determine whether the convention succeeds in making the EU more democratic, more efficient and more responsive to the needs of its citizens.
The convention's 105 delegates will be discussing draft articles for an EU constitution that would reform all the EU institutions. The articles, which were drafted by the convention's 12-member presidium, are highly controversial and have attracted hundreds of proposed amendments - including many from the Government's representative, Mr Dick Roche.
The battle lines are drawn between those who want to strengthen the EU's supranational institutions - such as the Commission and the European Parliament - and those who want to concentrate more power in the hands of national governments meeting in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. The presidium's draft proposes that the EU's six-month rotating presidency should be abolished and that EU leaders should appoint a president of the European Council to organise the EU's agenda for up to five years. The Council president would also represent the EU abroad, meeting such figures as the US president on an equal footing.
National governments would lose their power to veto new measures, except where the constitution provides otherwise. Decisions would be made by qualified majority, a concept redefined to mean a majority of member-states, representing at least 60 per cent of the EU population.
The EU would have a foreign minister, who would be a member of the Commission but would also attend meetings of EU leaders and chair regular meetings of national foreign ministers. Although the EU will have 25 member-states next year, there would only be 15 members of the Commission, including the Commission president and the EU foreign minister. The Commission president would be elected by the European Parliament - but there would be only one nominee, chosen by EU leaders after "taking into account" the results of the European elections. If the European Parliament was to reject the nominee, a new name would be presented for approval the following month.
Each government would present three names for consideration as a commissioner and the Commission president would choose his team from these. No member-state would have an automatic right to be represented in the Commission.
Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Spain - the EU's biggest countries - have led calls for the creation of a Council president and the abolition of the six-month rotating presidency. They argue that the EU needs a more coherent political direction and that, in a Union of 25 or more, the rotating presidency would become too unwieldy.
Smaller countries and the Commission oppose the proposal, fearing the Council president could undermine the role of the Commission president and create a rival bureaucracy. They fear that, by strengthening the role of the Council, where bigger countries have more votes, the big countries would seize control of the EU agenda.
Diplomats from the bigger countries insist the Council president is as likely to come from a small state as a big one and they argue that all member-states have as great an interest in safeguarding the role of national governments within the EU. But they acknowledge privately that a Council president is likely to listen more closely to Berlin, Paris and London than to other EU capitals. "If he has to make a decision quickly, he'll make three calls. If he has more time, he'll make six or 10. He's never going to call 25," said one diplomat.
Smaller countries are also worried about the loss of an automatic right to representation on the Commission, although the Government is willing to accept a reduced Commission if places are filled in rotation and on a strict equality principle.
As the convention moves into its final phase next month, abandoning public debates in favour of meetings of its constituent parts, a compromise on institutional reform is likely. Its most likely form is an agreement from the small states and the Commission to accept the appointment of a Council president with strictly limited powers. In return, the big countries would agree to restore each member-state's right to a commissioner - possibly on condition that the Commission would streamline its internal organisation.
Most members of the convention appear willing to allow the European Parliament to elect the Commission president on a single nomination from EU leaders. This will disappoint those who want to introduce more democratic vitality into the EU and to enhance the political authority of the Commission.
Whatever about a compromise on institutional reform, the convention is less likely to agree on which policy areas should be decided by EU governments acting unanimously. Most member-states have what they call "red lines" - issues they regard as non-negotiable - and it will be up to the inter-governmental conference that follows to work out a deal.
Even if the leaders agree the final text of a new constitution - probably in Dublin next year - the treaty will have to be ratified in all 25 member-states. Seven countries, including Ireland, have indicated they will subject the new treaty to referendums, allowing citizens to judge if the convention has fulfilled its mandate to make Europe more democratic, open and efficient.