Vital cooperation. Herman Van Rompuy has confirmed that he has a "weekly meeting" with José Manuel Barroso. The regularity of these meetings confirms that both of them are aware of the need for a permanent relationship, given the role attributed by the former to the European Council, and the willingness of the latter to defend the prerogatives of the Commission (see this column in the two previous editions of this bulletin). This vital relationship is not an easy one to manage, because on the one hand, the heads of government tend to assume responsibility not only for defining the orientations of the activities of the Union, but also for making the resulting decisions of principle themselves, whilst on the other, the Commission must keep its "right of initiative" and role as guardian of Community interests. How can we prevent the EU from slipping into an intergovernmental system? Mr Van Rompuy told the Parliament that he and Mr Barroso "are aware of the need to avoid clashes of competence and misunderstandings over who is responsible for what", adding: "I believe that we are on the right track", which basically means that there are still a few difficulties remaining (see our bulletin10085).
A reasonable modus vivendi could be set in place, on four conditions: a) the Commission's right of initiative is respected; b) its president does not hesitate to defend Community interests in all attempts at compromise; c) the summit does not give in to the temptation to go for minimal solutions in order to achieve unanimity; d) both institutions pay heed to the fact that they are not the only one and never forget that the European Parliament is co-legislator with equal powers with the Council.
Problems and differences of opinion. The problems are not theoretical hypotheses, there are plenty of examples. There are differences of opinion over the status and composition of the future joint diplomatic service, as with the role of the EU delegations to third countries as regards coordinating the positions of the national embassies. Furthermore, the member states are of the opinion that the Commission should consult them before it appoints the heads of EU delegations to third countries (as was the case with the appointment of João Vale de Almeida to Washington).
Additionally, the role of the sectorial Councils and that of the Commission in preparations for the summits raises a few problems. One topical example of this is that the European Council of 25 and 26 March will largely be discussing the future financial regulations and climate-related problems (further to the world Copenhagen summit) and the stances of the Commission and of the specialist Councils do not entirely coincide.
I believe that the differences of opinion, both those I have referred to and others, although inevitable, can be overcome if we bear in mind the fact that only the Commission has the necessary expertise to assess the differences between national stances and to prepare appropriate compromise positions. Its staff is made up of representatives of all of the member states, meaning that it can remain abreast of all national interests. The General Affairs Council, which has resumed its role as a coordinator of the member states' stances in preparation for the summits, needs the Commission's expertise; see, for example, in our bulletin 10084, the role of Connie Hedegaard, Commissioner for Climate Action, in preparation for the forthcoming summit's debate on the post-Copenhagen situation. The case of the financial regulations speaks greater volumes still: the Ecofin Council adopted a position which moves away from several significant aspects of the Commission's draft, but Mr Barroso declared that he would defend the draft before the summit (and he will have the support of the majority of the European Parliament).
Three general conclusions. I am not going to list every last item, as that would get tedious; there will be other cases to quote, other problems to overcome. For the time being, I would just like to reiterate the following general conclusions from this whole exercise:
1. Reinforcing the European Council will be positive, because it is absurd that the heads of government play only an intermittent role which is not clearly defined within Community activity.
2. The planned reform brings with it two dangers: the risk that the European way of making Community laws could be undermined, to the benefit of the intergovernmental method; the risk of ending up systematically seeking the lowest common denominator in order to get everybody's agreement.
3. The only way that these two dangers can be fought and overcome is by fully respecting the autonomy and competence of the European Commission (right of initiative and definition of common interest) and of the European Parliament (co-legislator of equal powers with the Council).
If these conditions are met, Herman Van Rompuy's way of working will be a positive thing for Europe.
(F.R./transl.fl)