(Contribution to the Jean Monnet Chairs annual conference)
The “Jean Monnet Chairs” annual conference was held in Brussels this week, and held a workshop on the institutional innovations introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. The editorialist at Agence EUROPE was invited to give an eye-witness account of the reform, following comments from leading academics from Europe and beyond. Here is Ferdinando Riccardi's contribution:
Two changes that have transformed the way Europe operates
As a professional experienced in the EU's mode of operations, I believe that the impact of some of the institutional changes is already evident and fully operational, whereas others are still surrounded with uncertainty. The repercussions are hugely significant and clearly evident in the following two areas:
1. The European Parliament's new powers. As a co-legislator in virtually all domains and directly involved in two crucial areas - trade policy and trade - where it could do no more than express its views in the past, the EP is implementing a root-and-branch transformation in how Europe operates. The plethora of tangible examples speak for themselves. The media are well aware of the fact that this is the first time that the European Parliament has had such power and attention.
2. The stable presidency of the European Council. Much has changed and I believe much of it has been positive. I think that the initial criticisms of the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as the president of the European Council were misplaced. He was criticised for not being a celebrity in Europe or anywhere else in the world and was even described as a Mister Nobody. A world celebrity would have had to drag their past and well-known opinions around with them. As soon as he took up his post, Herman Van Rompuy made what looked like a modest statement that was in reality brimming with guile, saying that his personal views had never been important and he never expressed his own views on any subject because the views that he would make public would always be the opinions of the European Council as a whole. Humility? At first sight, perhaps, but his statement actually means that any statement he makes expresses the views of the European Summit, with all the weight and significance this entails.
He has already had an opportunity to make important, if not revolutionary statements, like when he said that economic governance of Europe already exists, it is the European Council, that he went on to explain with great eloquence(1). He sticks to the basic idea that he expresses the views of the European Summit as a whole, using the word “government” when he speaks in French, and the world “governance” when speaking in English…
Another significant change introduced by Herman Van Rompuy is that the European Council now meets virtually every month. It is true that Van Rompuy convenes special summits to discuss specific issues, but in practice, whenever the European Summit gets together, it discusses everything that's happening across the board.
This means that all EU heads of state are directly and permanently involved in European affairs, an issue that some of them paid only half-hearted, intermittent and superficial attention to in the past. As far some European prime ministers were concerned, the most important and pressing concern at the six-monthly European Councils in the past was to wangle a meeting with the president of the United States. Such a meeting does carry enormous weight in the media back home, of course, but a president of the European Commission once told me that the US president's assistants would ask him “Who's that guy over there?”, to which he would have to reply that that guy over there was the current president of the EU Summit. A few weeks later, a different person would get the job. The un-changing nature of the new presidency may grate a little with some people but Europe as a whole benefits from it.
Foreign policy misunderstandings and uncertainties
The impact of other institutional changes cannot yet be clearly measured on the ground and will have to be monitored as they develop. There is a question mark hanging over the fact that just one individual has three hats - head of the European diplomatic service, president of the European Foreign Relations Council and vice-president of the European Commission. In my view, the main reason for this perplexity is not the often criticised character of Catherine Ashton who is wearing these three hats, but rather the fact she is described and presented as the European foreign minister. This job does not exist and neither does a common foreign policy. Catherine Ashton and the European diplomatic corps will help it gradually get set up, analysing problems at EU level and getting diplomats of various nationalities to work together, gradually drawing up common positions. This will be a long process and progress will be piecemeal. The idea of a regular qualified-majority-voting system will have to be left to one side. Van Rompuy has made very wise comments in this connection and, as we know, he never expresses his personal views but only the opinions of the European Council as a whole(2).
Cautious, step-by-step approach. I will cite two examples, one from the past and one from the present, that call for a cautious, step-by-step approach in this domain. The European Convention that prepared for the new Treaty was discussing the sensitive issue of foreign policy when the Iraq War broke out. Several Convention members were deeply concerned and verging on despair at the European foreign policy collapsing before it had even begun! A very different reaction came from Jacques Delors, speaking unofficially on the fringes of the Convention, and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, speaking officially as the Convention chairman, both of whom commented that if a European foreign policy had been in existence, with the option of making qualified-majority decisions, then it would have collapsed because the EU would have split in two and the member states that would have been in the minority in the vote would never have gone along with the majority decision.
Today's example is recognition of Kosovo as an independent state (which could apply to join the EU in the future). Most member states recognise the new country of Kosovo, but not Spain and a handful of other countries. A European view does not exist. Is it necessary to try to decide on a European view without delay? Spain's attitude is not determined by hostility to Kosovo but rather by respect for the general UN rule whereby a section of an officially recognised country cannot decide unilaterally to separate off. One can understand why Spain reacts like this, given that there are strong movements for autonomy in the Basque Country and Catalonia. EU member states have to discuss this together and analyse the reasons underlying both views and then try to find a common position that takes account of the history and situation of each country. This will be the task of the new European diplomatic corps, when it is in operation. Jacques Delors has written some illuminating pages on this question in his Memoirs.
Strengthened cooperation. Another of the institutional changes, whose mechanics and impact are not yet clear, is the new system of strengthened cooperation which may play a highly significant role in determining the future of the European project. Jacques Delors recently suggested using it to set up something he feels is needed, namely a European Energy Community. He is aware of the doubts that strengthened cooperation generates in the member states, which criticise it for running the risk of moving towards a two-speed Europe. To appease these fears, he uses the term “différenciation”, pointing out that if people had waited in the past until everyone agreed, then the single currency and the Schengen Area would not be in existence today. He points out that all member states would be able to join strengthened cooperation in the future, as long as they agree to the criteria and meet the rules. Clear enough from the journalistic point of view but experts say it is a very fraught both legally and politically.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
(1) From Van Rompuy's speech in Lille, France, on 10 April 2010: “the members of the European Council believe, like me, that the European Council must play an economic governance role because it is the only body with the political energy needed to make bold and difficult decisions.”
(2)Van Rompuy commented on this issue: “if we take as our starting point that a single common foreign policy is required, then we will fail at everything. We have to implement several policies, agreeing on Iran or the Middle East, seeking compromise on a case-by-case basis, one issue at a time.”