Firmness and wisdom. 2010 does not in itself imply any significant institutional innovations in the EU - with one very important exception - given that the Lisbon Treaty is already in force; the high representative/permanent president of the Foreign Affairs Council has already taken up his role; and that the “Barroso II” European Commission is awaiting Parliament's investiture so that it can be formally appointed. This exception is the permament president of the European Council. Herman Van Rompuy has just taken up this role - and it is a revolution of which we have not yet assessed all the repercussions.
Who still takes the sarcastic comments greeting the appointment of a little-known figure on the international stage or the definition “Mr Nobody” and other similar remarks, seriously? Flamboyant notoriety would not bring any efficiency at all because it would be linked to previous political choices that are sometimes controversial (for example, support for the invasion of Iraq or opposition to the draft European constitution) and which impinge on the capacity to express oneself in favour of the Union's future as a whole or putting forward common positions and orientations to the outside world. Jacques Delors was right to say from the very beginning that far from being the president of the Union (a role that does not exist), “the permanent president of the European Council must be a chairman”, a figure who submits clear priorities and options to the summit, who seeks to transform them into common positions and then ensures that they are appropriately and correctly implemented. An “executive president” would be a source of tension with heads of state and government and the European Commission, to the detriment of the efficient functioning of the “Community method”. This warning by Mr Delors goes back to the beginning of October but it was not sufficiently understood, as borne out by the facile sarcasm meted out by some of the press and some MEPs with regard to the low profile of the president-designate. Fortunately, Mr Van Rompuy himself clearly explained how he interpreted his role and intended to exercise his duties. His ideas correspond to those expressed by Jacques Delors.
The new president has spoken out on several occasions and has added one or other new elements to his vision each time he has spoken. A brief outline will familiarise us with his intentions and help us to assess his ideas:
1. Role and objectives. The profile of the permanent president of the European Council is defined by Mr Van Rompuy in three words - dialogue, unity, action. In other words: a) discussing together, without any intention of imposing the personal opinion of the president (if there is indeed a personal opinion, this will never be indicated to the outside world); b) reaching a common position - “when I speak, it will be on behalf of the EU and with the certainty of as broad a consensus as possible”; c) putting the common positions into practice through action, because “the image of the Council is built on results”. This implies that everyone's opinions be taken into consideration (“each country must be a winner in the negotiations”) and that “the institutions operate in an optimal way” according to the new institutional framework which is set out “for a long time, indeed for a very long time”: the institutional debate is closed for a long period”. The president of the European Council will act in permanent consultation with the president of the Commission and the European Parliament, while at the same time seeking constant balance between the institutions.
2. Functioning. The European Council has become a Community institution in its own right, made up of heads of government. The latter can sometimes be accompanied by their foreign affairs ministers, but the attendance of the latter will, nonetheless, not be systematic. Mr Van Rompuy sees this as being rather strange, even though it poses a number of institutional problems in some member states. There will be fewer texts prepared in advance, and so exchanges of views will be less constrained. The “conclusions” from the summits will be systematically accompanied by a political message that is clearly understood by the public. The two traditional annual sessions will be accompanied by informal meetings on specific themes. The first will already take place next month, focusing on economic issues, and will be followed up by other questions. The goal will be defining (by the end of the first half of the year) a clear European strategy on economic growth and funding the European social model. In foreign policy, the permanent president will “represent the Union at a Union level and on its behalf”. In this connection, Van Rompuy has clearly explained: “I will therefore be present at summit meetings with our partners in the world and I will present the positions that the Council will have approved”, although the “high representative will contribute decisively to the daily action involved in the common foreign and security policy”.
What orientations? We can see that Mr Van Rompuy's ideas are clear. His strength is down to the fact that he did not ask for his new role and that he has no specific national positions to defend, because his country is represented at the European Council (as are all the others) by his prime minister. The method outlining how things will function is clear. The essential part of it is obviously contained in the contents of the positions taken; in the outline defined by the European Council with regard to developments in European construction and the role of Europe in the world. In this respect, the orientations outlined are far from being all the same. This column will return to this subject tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)