In my opinion, the changing role of the European Council in the way the European Union operates is a positive development because it means that EU heads of state will now be permanently involved in EU affairs and take political responsibility for them, ending the recent period of doubt and doublespeak (see my column in yesterday's newsletter), but the changes are not without risks to the EU's institutional balance. It is essential that the powers and action of the other EU institutions are fully safeguarded, particularly the European Commission's exclusive right of initiative and the European Parliament's legislative powers, powers that have finally been put on an equal footing with the EU Council of Ministers' powers in all domains.
Swift and foreign policy. The European Council's new role clearly impacts on institutional balance, as the EU institutions in question are well aware. Concerns and disagreements are emerging in this connection, as is to be expected. The EP, in particular, has taken quick action to assert its powers and extend them where possible. The attitude of the European Parliament and its successful opposition to the mooted Swift deal (on providing the United States with Europeans' bank details) have stolen the stage and speak volumes (see my column in issue 10078). Other cases are less belligerent but significant nevertheless, like the EP's new powers over farming (due to its greater powers over the budget), which the EP is planning to assert with force.
Budget powers are also utilised in areas where the EP's powers are less clear-cut or more controversial, like the foreign common and security policy (CFSP). A report recently endorsed by the EP's foreign affairs committee by its chair, Gabriele Albertini (reported upon in yesterday's issue of the newsletter), says that the EP should make use of its powers over the budget to strengthen the CFSP's democratic legitimacy, and this should include the operational mechanisms of the new EU diplomatic corps that is currently being set up. The report calls for proper parliamentary scrutiny over the appointment and work of the EU's special representatives abroad and demands harmonious application of EP budget procedures and consultation over CFSP action. It is an open secret that a power struggle is currently being waged between the European Council and the Foreign Relations Council on the one hand, and the European Commission on the other, and I will be writing about this tomorrow.
Trends that must be avoided. Balance between the European Council and the European Parliament impacts on many other areas, like the key question of financial regulation. The EP is a legislator, on equal footing with the EU Council of Ministers. In theory, its institutional interlocutors are the Economic and Financial Affairs Council and also, for eurozone countries at least, the Eurogroup, but it is well known that EU heads of state (in other words, the European Council) are also directly involved and it is the heads of state who actually decide on the fundamentals. This is shown by the problems facing Greece and the same will apply for future decisions and policy. It is therefore essential for the European Parliament (and the European Commission for that matter) to ensure it plays a full role in order to avoid, both here and in other issues, sliding back into the intergovernmental method.
Trends to give the nod to. There is a clear danger of distortion inherent in MEPs' freedom of speech and the media have given wide coverage to the mud thrown by UK MEP Nigel Farage at Herman Van Rompuy, given the unusual nature of the attack (see end section of the report on the debate at the 11 February summit in issue 10085). I happen to believe that the danger of MEPs potentially going too far is hugely preferable to the danger of censorship, particularly in that any MEP (or anyone insulted by an MEP) has the right of reply. I prefer to focus on the reasons for Farage's ire. He basically told Van Rompuy that Van Rompuy was capable, skilful and dangerous because he despised nation states. What Farage and his political allies fear is greater European integration that respects the member states but tries to assert the common interest. Martin Schulz was right when he replied that countries are not forced to integrate - it is their choice. If the UK were to agree with Farage, it would be free to leave the EU, as is made clear in the Lisbon Treaty.
In my next column, I will be spelling out lessons to be learnt from all this.
(F.R./transl.fl)