23 October 2003

The European Union's October summit was dominated by controversy over the draft EU constitution. Doubts concerning the issue were voiced first and foremost by Poland.

The summit meeting Oct. 16-17 in Brussels-one de facto constituting two events jointly: the Intergovernmental Conference and a European Council session-was devoted to the questions of the European constitution, stimulating the economy, common security policy, border control and immigration.

Discussions concerning the draft EU constitution cost the most time and patience. The draft presented by the European Convention, led by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, was rejected by Poland several weeks ago, on the grounds that it undermined the decisions of the Nice Treaty of Dec. 2000 which-according to the Polish government-was the only proper compromise in the spirit of equality among all EU members.

Moot points
Poland did not approve of many ideas of the Convention, including the solution that 10 among the 25 commissioners would have no voice during the European Commission's work. Poland also demanded the blocking of EU military alliances competitive to NATO. At first, Poland also wanted a veto to be retained for each member country in the areas of social policy, taxes and defense. Finally, Poland demanded the introduction into the preamble of a reference to Europe's Christian roots.
These proposals, however, were regarded by the Polish delegation in Brussels as "negotiable." On the other hand, the Polish politicians demonstrated absolute tenacity-in accordance with former declarations-over their defense of the Nice decisions concerning the EU Council voting system.

The rules as settled in Nice gave 27 votes to Poland, the same number as to Spain and only two fewer than the most powerful countries: Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain. The stipulations of the "Convention constitution" grant to those countries, according to population parity, considerably more votes: for example, to Germany about twice as many as to Poland.

In accordance with the draft by the European Convention, EU laws would be passed by at least one half of the countries accounting for 60 percent of the EU population. All these factors together would bring a marked advantage to the largest countries and considerably weaken Poland's position in the decision-making processes of an enlarged EU.

To arms
Immediately after the first Intergovernmental Conference meeting, Prime Minister Leszek Miller announced the Polish delegation's consistent position on vote weighting in the Council. Miller stressed that Poland wanted "the talks to result in solutions satisfactory to all." He added that "we care that the position of small, medium and large countries in the EU be equally important. Under the provisions of the Nice Treaty, there is much more of the thought concerning equality of the countries' positions than is the case under the proposals authored by the Convention." Asked about the possibility of compromise, Miller said "the compromise is the Nice system." Foreign Affairs Minister Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz added that "the Nice system squares with the fundamental values and rules of the EU considerably better."

Miller, in his official statement, also demanded "equal participation of all commissioners in the work and decisions of the Commission." Spain presented a similar, negative position to the question of Nice. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar stated, however, that for him "the Nice treaty is not the Bible." This was perceived as opening the way to possible negotiations. Two small countries, Estonia and Malta, also supported Poland.

NATO deal
Poland maintained its position on the question of defense. "We are against anything that might be competitive to NATO, including forming a separate military staff. That would naturally threaten destruction within NATO," said Miller. Cimoszewicz pointed out that formation of a separate European command would also mean huge costs. "The money should be put to better use, even within security and defense policy. Moreover, every such autonomous outside-NATO mechanism would have much less credibility, not only than the Alliance but also than the respective national commands." This stance proved effective. Talk of setting up a separate military alliance in the EU ended; Great Britain, in part under Polish pressure, withdrew its support for the idea of forming a European general staff.

Tough negotiations
On other questions discussed at the conference, the Polish delegation did not present such an intransigent position. It opted in favor of certain changes aimed at improving EU activity, including the appointment of a permanent president of the European Council, and making decisions by qualified majority more frequent.

Yet, the obstinacy of the Polish delegation, referred to as Euroskeptical and "aggressive," was generally criticized. Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Louis Michel said that the stance of Poland and Spain "has none-too-pro-European connotations." Michel added that "everyone has a reality of their own, but you need to know if you want a strong Europe, one that serves all, one that strengthens all, or if you want a Europe that will act just anyhow and that eventually will be based on a sum of indifference."

Representatives of the "opposite pole," the countries opting for a revision of the Nice Treaty, did not want to abandon their position, either. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said that "the only chance for the enlargement of the EU to be followed by its deepening is the adoption of the draft constitution as proposed by the European Convention." In effect, no compromise had been found by the talks' end.

Economy-painful, but polite
The summit's positive, albeit somewhat nebulous result, was the adoption of the rather vague Growth Initiative, intended to implement proposed structural reforms adopted at the summit in Lisbon, and concerning, "increased production and improvement to the flexibility of capital resources and labor markets."

The initiative's final version is to be adopted at the next summit Dec. 12-13. Part of it is a list of priority projects of investments into transportation infrastructure. The European Commission recently presented a list of 29 such projects, and will now work on "short-listing" the projects with a chance of prompt implementation and the greatest benefits for many countries.

Agnieszka Domańska
Brussels

send to a friend	print article