Romano Prodi's document was a step too far for most Commissioners, who are not even united on their own compromise proposal for reform of EU institutions, writes Denis Staunton, from Brussels
Mr Romano Prodi has been in hot water many times, but the roasting he received from Commission colleagues on Wednesday evening was, by all accounts, quite unprecedented.
The Commissioners were preparing for the announcement of their proposals for reforming EU institutions, which were presented to the Convention on the Future of Europe yesterday.
The communication suggests that national vetoes should be abolished in all but the most sensitive policy areas, and that the convention should consider how a new treaty might enter into force even if it is not ratified by all member-states.
The Commissioners were pleased with the document, which reflected a compromise between the ambitions of the Commission's most committed federalists and a more cautious approach favoured by others.
During the weeks that the Commissioners had been discussing their communication, however, Mr Prodi had been pursuing a more ambitious plan. He had instructed a group of lawyers to produce, in secret, a full-length, draft treaty for the EU. This document - produced under the code-name Penelope - is much more radical than the communication agreed by all the Commissioners.
Mr Prodi's lawyers have, for example, a very clear idea about how a treaty might come into force without being ratified by all member-states: any country that voted against the new treaty would be deemed to have left the EU.
"Each member-state could choose between continued participation in the Union, now based on a constitution, and withdrawal from the Union to take on the status of associated country," the draft treaty says.
Italy's Mario Monti and Britain's Neil Kinnock led the charge against the Penelope text, which most Commissioners had only heard about through press leaks. By yesterday evening it had emerged that a majority of Commissioners opposed Mr Prodi's draft treaty.
If Penelope was too much for the Commission, yesterday's official communication was a step too far for many member-states. Britain, France, Spain and Denmark expressed strong reservations, with Britain's representative at the convention, Mr Peter Hain, describing the document as "extremely disappointing".
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, welcomed the Commission's proposals, describing as "interesting and creative" its ideas about reforming the EU's rotating Presidency, the election of the Commission President and the composition of the Commission.
The Commission's document proposes that the Commission President be elected by at least two-thirds of the European Parliament and confirmed by member-states' governments. The Government has a more radical proposal - to create an electoral college composed of members of the European Parliament and representatives of national parliaments.
The virtue of the Government's idea is that it would prevent the Commission President from being perceived as the creature of the dominant party in the European Parliament.
Mr Cowen also welcomed a proposal - endorsed by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - to create a single EU foreign policy representative by combining the roles of Mr Javier Solana and Mr Chris Patten.
But the Minister made clear that the Government will not compromise in its opposition to removing national vetoes in some policy areas, particularly concerning taxation.
In fact, the Government has a number of other "no-go areas" where it wants to retain the national veto, including some areas of justice and home affairs. Ireland also remains lukewarm on a proposal to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law.
The Government's position on other issues being discussed at the convention will become clearer when Mr Cowen speaks on the future of Europe later this month. The Taoiseach is also understood to be planning a major speech on Europe. In the meantime, the convention's work is gathering pace, and from next month its praesidium, or steering committee, will be presenting full passages of treaty text to be discussed.
As Ministers show signs of waking up to the convention's importance as a policy-making forum, the Government faces important questions. It must consider whether, by identifying so many areas where it feels incapable of compromise, it is in danger of weakening its ultimate negotiating position.
Report: page 14
Editorial comment: page 19