This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 002181 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: EU FM TALKS RAISE DOUBTS ABOUT JUNE TARGET 
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY 
 
REF:  DUBLIN 737 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) EU Foreign Ministers in the May 17-18 
session of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) - 
the first since the collapse of the December 2003 
Summit - made little progress on the draft EU 
Constitutional Treaty.  Irish FM/IGC chair Cowen 
nevertheless remained confident the Treaty will be 
agreed at the June 17-18 European Council.  But 
several FMs, including UK Foreign Secretary Straw, 
Belgian FM Michel and Polish FM Cimoszewicz, gave 
gloomier predictions.  Cimoszewicz complained that 
nobody was prepared to listen to his proposals for 
resolving the key dispute over voting rights in the 
Council ("If it goes on like that, I would not bet 
on an agreement").  IGC negotiations will continue 
on May 24.    END SUMMARY 
 
¶2. (SBU) Cowen cited progress on "a number of 
issues," but only pointed to a few.  One was 
apparent agreement on a proposal for teams of three 
countries to share duties over 18 months as chairs 
of ministerial level Councils (other than the 
External Relations and ECOFIN Councils, which would 
have longer term chairs).  COMMENT:  Although one of 
the Constitutional Treaty's purported aims is to 
make the EU easier to understand, this formula 
strikes us as no simplification of EU structures. 
END COMMENT. 
 
SCOPE OF QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTE: DIFFERENCES REMAIN 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) As anticipated by the Irish (reftel), 
agreeing on the scope of how far to extend qualified 
majority voting (QMV) in the Council continues to 
pose real problems.  Sources involved in the 
discussions told us the only additional clarity 
after this week's IGC meetings was that QMV would 
not be extended to foreign and security policy 
(CFSP), where countries such as the UK, Denmark, 
Latvia, Slovakia and Malta all spoke out in favor of 
retaining a requirement on consensus.  For other 
areas under debate, the Presidency refrained from 
making new proposals at this stage.  The UK restated 
its "red lines," in particular for retaining the 
consensus requirement on taxation and social 
security, but also continued concern about judicial 
cooperation in criminal matters.  Luxembourg and 
several new members (Poland, Estonia, Slovakia, and 
Malta) backed the UK's call for a continued veto 
right on the tax and social security issues. 
 
¶4. (SBU) While no agreements were reached, FMs did 
reportedly discuss in some detail a possible 
"emergency brake" procedure that could apply to some 
areas.  This would allow a member of the Council who 
considers that a draft European framework law would 
infringe the fundamental principles of its legal 
system to request that the piece be referred to the 
European Council.  The leaders could decide to 
request a new proposal from the Commission or go 
ahead with the legislative process under QMV. 
Supporters of extending QMV to as many areas as 
possible (reported to include governments such as 
Belgium, Greece, and Spain) argue this might be a 
way of introducing QMV in more areas while still 
giving due deference to national interests. 
 
COMMISSION SIZE DEBATED 
----------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) Another lengthy topic of debate was the size 
of future Commissions.  The Irish tabled "ideas" for 
retaining the one Commissioner per country principle 
until a given date (such as 2014), after which a new 
system would take effect, based on equal rotation. 
Belgium, France and Germany were most vocal in 
calling for a reduced Commission to allow for its 
effective functioning.  The most likely option would 
be a Commission of two-thirds the number of EU 
members, but other possibilities exist.  At the 
other end of the spectrum, many new Member States as 
well as Denmark, Austria and Greece, stuck to the 
one Commissioner per country formula.  The UK argued 
the newly-created EU FM position (who would also sit 
on the Commission) should not be counted against a 
Member States rotation. 
 
FRANCE CALLS FOR MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) French FM Barnier publicly called on the 
Presidency to produce a global compromise package: 
"We need a moment of truth.  It's time for the 
Presidency to take a risk."  The call was perceived 
as aimed at countering efforts by the UK to broaden 
the unanimity rule in order to secure public support 
in a prospective referendum.  Speaking at his final 
press conference, Cowen politely rebuffed Barnier: 
"It's not a question of taking risks.  It's a 
question of having sufficient discussion that will 
allow the Presidency to put forward proposals that 
will meet with agreement."  Cowen said the Irish 
would offer a global package when the time was 
right.  He also announced an extra IGC ministerial 
on May 24. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) This week's negotiations did not make the 
hoped-for progress, casting doubts about the 
leaders' chances to meet their self-imposed target. 
This is not necessarily fatal for the draft 
Constitutional Treaty: the IGC's unofficial motto 
("Nothing has been agreed until everything has been 
agreed") indicates how difficult it can be to assess 
what flexibility exists in various Member State 
positions.  The final litmus test of the Irish 
negotiating tactics will come at the June 17-18 
Summit.  But with the Euro-elections just a few days 
earlier, the stated intention of many countries to 
consider any concession on the institutions only as 
a part of a final overall package, the added 
pessimism that even a deal agreed in the IGC might 
not survive the ratification process in all 25 
Member States, and the continued uncertainty over 
the domestic political situation in Poland are all 
factors that complicate the betting and the search 
for a Constitution deal. 
 
SCHNABEL