Permanent risk but… The risk of institutional slippage of the EU from the Community method to the inter-governmental method is a constant worry. It has accompanied the entire history of European construction and it is healthy that it is being denounced, even now, because development in an inter-governmental direction would mean the end of the dream of integration and a return to the alliances of the past. Such a situation consistently failed to prevent tension, misunderstandings and wars. It is obvious that, faced with globalisation, only a Europe that expresses itself with a single voice can play a proactive role and succeed in getting its voice heard. Nonetheless, the transformations introduced by the Lisbon Treaty should not be forgotten because they radically strengthen the Community institutions and increase their real powers. The effects of this development are plain to see.
It is good that we remain vigilant but we should also take into account that: a) the European Council is currently an EU institution and has the power to take decisions and meet every month because it has a stable president who does not exercise a national role any longer and exclusively focuses on European affairs with a continuity that was previously unthinkable; b) the European Parliament has new powers that are as decisive as those of the role of the legislator and is on an equal footing with the Council, having control of all the Union's spending; c) the “External Relations Council” is presided over by the vice president of the Commission; e) cooperation between national parliaments / the European Parliament has been stepped up and guarantees a degree of cooperation that was previously unknown, in addition to legislative harmony and mutual understanding.
Reasoning to be overruled. These spectacular advances explain the concern of member states to be present in a balanced and appropriate way within the Community institutions. This reasoning, in my opinion, should be overruled. It is not because the Community institutions are weak that the member states are interested in this question so much and that they are fighting for their own nationals to play a role, but because these institutions are acquiring more and more weight. We have already witnessed this occurring with the European Commission: we can recall the quasi unanimity with which the hypothesis of one or another nationality in turn taking over has been rejected. Around 30 years ago, the role of a European commissioner was considered in certain member states as a consolation prize for a political figure that was already on the decline, indeed, an elegant way of removing a potential rival. Everyone now knows what a European commissioner is, even if the demand for their presence at the Commission is sometimes based on an erroneous objective: a commissioner does not represent his country of origin in any way. Personally, I am sometimes unaware or have forgotten the nationality of a commissioner. Only the functions they perform are of interest to me. Nationality remains important in the countries of origin and also a means of guaranteeing that all civilisations and views are represented in Brussels, but their autonomy is untouchable.
The European diplomatic service - a specific problem. There is currently a lot of polemic surrounding the question of the European External Action Service (EEAS), which we know will be made up of officials from the Commission and the Council, in addition to diplomats from member states. It is pretty normal that each nationality is represented in it because as a service its activity will have to take into account the history and interests of all member states. Nominations must primarily be based on the quality of the individual in question and their knowledge and experience. According to certain sources, the candidate for the role of secretary general of the EEAS would be the current French ambassador to the US. Immediately, commentaries have focused on the balance between nationalities and the weight exerted by member states etc. I believe it more important to look at the name of this ambassador: he is called Pierre Vimont and has unique experience of European issues, acquired to a large extent in Brussels during the difficult “empty chair” period of his country, a situation that he helped to overcome. Here is an example of the criteria to be taken into consideration!
EUROPE 10092 summarised the preparatory document of Catherine Ashton. She will be at the head of the service and our publication reported on the very critical responses from foreign affairs ministers, who are largely dissatisfied with this document. The discussions will continue and arrangements will be made but in order to overcome the difficulties, it will be necessary, above all, to recognise that the EEAS will strengthen the Community character of foreign policy and not the contrary. It will enable the EU to gradually define European positions, the result of common reflections that take into account the interests and opinions of all member states, in addition to their history and geography, in an effort to define the European interest resulting from this process. This will constitute progress in the Community method and not progress for the inter-governmental method. (F.R./transl.fl)