EU: The chairman of the Convention on the Future of Europe, Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, has suggested that some EU member-states could create a mutual defence pact within the Union. Speaking after a plenary session of the Convention, Mr Giscard said that the scope of a proposed "solidarity clause" obliging member-states to help one another in the event of a terrorist attack could be extended.
"We have to suggest that this should apply to everything, not just terrorism but to the security of the member-states. We'll see how the countries respond," he said.
Mr Giscard made clear that any mutual defence agreement should be organised under the "enhanced co-operation" mechanism that allows countries to opt in or out of such arrangements.
His remarks follow a call by Gen Gustav Hagglund, the head of the EU's Military Committee, for the defence tasks of NATO and the EU to be merged. Gen Hagglund told the European Voice newspaper that such an arrangement would reduce Europe's dependence on the US security guarantee.
The Convention yesterday received a second batch of draft articles for the constitutional treaty to be presented to EU leaders in June. But sharp disagreement has broken out over the timing of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) that will follow the Convention.
France and Germany called earlier this year for the IGC to be finished by December 2003, with a new treaty agreed by leaders during the Italian presidency. But candidate countries complain that this timetable would mean that they could not participate fully in the decision-making process.
They want the IGC to be extended or delayed so that the final decisions will not be made until after they become full members of the EU in May 2004.
The Government's representative at the Convention, Mr Dick Roche, said yesterday that it was unacceptable for the new member-states to be excluded.
"They must have a role to play in the IGC. They have to be full participating members. The final agreement cannot take place until after May 1st," he said.
Italy has suggested that, even if the treaty is agreed during the Irish presidency, it should still be called the Treaty of Rome, but Mr Roche dismissed the suggestion.
"There's a process for naming treaties. We're not prepared to surrender that just because someone wants it to be called the Treaty of Rome 2," he said.
