Official institution with recognised powers. The transformation of the European Council is occurring under our very eyes and looks like it is going to be more radical and innovative than what had been expected. The political figures and commentators who had already decided that the institutional reform included in the Lisbon Treaty was a failure, should read or reread the first article in our publication EUROPE 10080, which illustrates the goals of Herman Van Rompuy with regard to the role and the way in which this body functions - a body of which he has been the permanent president for a number of weeks now (he will exercise this role for two and a half years, a period which will undoubtedly be extended to five).
It should be pointed out that the European Council was not included in the first European Treaties. When it came into being (in 1974, on the initiative of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing) it had no official basis to it. It was not until 1986 that it was mentioned in a treaty. Even after it had acquired the legal right to exist, the body was not empowered to make any decisions. It met up quite rarely to hold rather vague exchanges of views. It has gradually assumed more importance but in an informal and fluctuating way. For certain periods, it gave the impression of guiding, in its own way, European construction (this was the Kohl-Mitterrand epoque, with Jacques Delors at the presidency of Commission). At other times, it operated in a kind of fog and its results were not always particularly obvious. During the Czech crisis, its role was a simple façade. It was called the “summit” due to its composition but its effective role was unstable and its conclusions were not always explicit, even for the institutions that were supposed to put them into practice. The Presidency changed every six months and the acting president at the same time kept his national duties as prime minister (or president of the Republic in France's case).
The Lisbon Treaty ultimately bestowed the European Council with the rank of a Community institution, endowing it with well-defined competences and providing it with a permanent president with a single function. Not only can it take decisions but also, in several more important areas, it can make them at majority voting, particularly with regard to the nominations of its president, the president of the European Commission, the high representative for foreign and security policy and the president of the European Central Bank.
Its initiative role and decision-making. At a legal level, everything has changed and Mr Van Rompuy intends to draw the political and operational lessons from this development. The information already provided last week in our publication was partly based on non-official indications from sources close to him. By stipulating that the European Council should meet almost every month, Mr Van Rompuy aims to build a kind of European government that has a task comparable to that of national governments in member states - with a role of initiative, reflection and political decision-making. Heads of state and government would collectively assume responsibility for outlining the essential orientations of Union activity and taking decisions linked to these orientations. By meeting every month (or almost), all the heads of government would follow and understand European issues much better and much more closely, and would subsequently have more of an interest in explaining these issues in their respective countries.
The era of lengthy texts prepared in advance by the sectorial Councils or ambassadors is therefore over. The European Council would assume the task, amongst others, previously exercised by the General Affairs Council, but at a much higher level and with the authority that results from this. The General Affairs Council would remain indispensable, taking back the coordinating role that it has largely lost along the way, as well as taking responsibility for following up decisions made at the summit. The fog surrounding the results of some of the European Councils would lift because Mr Van Rompuy himself would report back on them to the institutions (principally the Parliament) and the public at large. This would constitute a radical transformation.
Respecting institutional balance and avoiding the minimalist trap. I am aware of the concerns, indeed, even the distrust that such a revolution could provoke in the other institutions. They might well wonder about the “exclusive right” of the Commission to present proposals. What about the sharing of legislative power between the Parliament and the Council on an equal footing? It is obvious that institutional balance must be respected and that the responsibility of each institution must be safeguarded. The implicit risk in a predominant role played by the European Council would be located in the wish to establish unanimous compromises, which would reduce European ambition by bringing it down to the lowest common denominator.
It would be up to President Van Rompuy, heads of state and, above all, the other institutions, to avoid falling into this trap. This column will return to this question tomorrow. (F.R./transl.fl)