FOREIGN minister representatives, making their first forays into the tangled web of the reform of the European Union treaties, have begun to explore how to create flexible foreign policy structures. Members are reviewing a series of questions put to each of them by the Italian presidency.
As the Inter Governmental Conference (IGC) takes its tentative first steps, officials have been exploring the treaty challenges posed by a number of often conflicting aspirations - the desire to bring the Union closer to the citizens, the need to prepare for a large number of new members the need to give the EU political weight on the world stage and so on.
The challenge is to try to reconcile the desire of some countries to integrate faster with the refusal of others - most notably Britain - to cede sovereignty by moving away from unanimity voting. France and Germany, supported by the Commission, have argued for more flexible structures short of two tiers of membership. Such mechanisms might also be seen as a way of gradually integrating new members into the Union.
Last week broad support was expressed for such an approach, although several representatives warned of the need to set down firm conditions. In essence, the integrationists see flexibility as a half way house, a means of overcoming the veto and progressively pushing issues from that sphere of voting irrevocably towards the majority voting spheres. Hence their complete opposition to any flexibility of approach in what is known as the First Pillar such flexibility could only imply dilution of the single market and other core community values.
For the nation staters, flexibility means being able to pick and choose policies at will. They are reluctant to see any treaty commitment that implies an obligation to follow the majority down a particular road at some stage in the future.
The IGC has been meeting two days a week at the level of ministers' representatives and the ministers themselves have had one session on the issue so far. They will produce a preliminary report for next month's Florence summit, although few expect the heads of government there to be able to achieve detailed discussions. That is only likely to happen at the Dublin summit in December, with the aim of concluding business under the Dutch Presidency in the early months of 1997.
The Tanaiste, Mr Spring's representative is the former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Noel Dorr, who describes the current process as "general skirmishing before battle", a clearing of the ground by identifying those issues which won't fly at all and those with a chance.
To date, all the representatives have been doing has been setting out national positions without attempting to rank their importance, a process that allows the beginnings of negotiation.
At this stage there is also a sense, according to several participants, that some countries are still playing their cards close to their chests, waiting for the result of the British general election. But Irish spokesmen are keen to deny that Ireland's tenure at the helm of the IGC from the beginning of July will simply "mark time".
The review is being undertaken under three broad headings: citizenship and human rights; the institutions; and external actions or the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Each contains fundamental problems, making rapid advance in any one area problematic.
Although the Reflection Group had earlier called for simplification by the IGC of Union legislation it appears there is little appetite for root and branch pruning of the treaties.
"There's nothing as complex as simplification," Mr Dorr says, warning of danger of reopening issues already settled and of refighting old battles that could call into question the acquis communautaire, the EU's accumulated body of law and practices.
