A few extra comments are required about last week's European Council. In my column in the previous issue, I argued that the summit's outcome shows that the EU is in a creative phase, being forced by events to demonstrate courage and initiative. Today, I will comment on some specifics.
1) A small but significant change. As far as I am aware, nobody has noticed that the document setting out the summit's deliberations is no longer entitled “Presidency Conclusions”, but is now called “European Council Conclusions”. I remember that “Presidency Conclusions” was used in the past to avert tortuous arguments about specific words and commas - the acting president of the summit took responsibility for the document. Hermann Van Rompuy has done away with this and the European Council as a whole is now responsible. What would happen if any country were to disagree with an item? It would be noted in the document (as in paragraph 16 of the conclusions document for the 17 June summit: “the Czech Republic reserves the right not to...”).
2) A useful couple. Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy meet up regularly to decide together on the line to be defended in Brussels. When they get their partners to agree, they are accused of trying to exercise bilateral imperialism; and when they don't manage to win agreement, people immediately start talking about a breakdown in Franco-German relations that will be disastrous for Europe! If one of the two changes their mind on an issue, that is seen as a sign of weakness and of being bossed around by the other country. Take last week. Nicolas Sarkozy wanted a special European Council to be set up for the eurozone, a new EU institution with its own staff and its own schedule of meetings. Angela Merkel disagreed and the French President went along with her. Germany was able to make use of Van Rompuy's pragmatic approach - he didn't want any new EU institution to be set up, suggesting instead that he should himself have the flexibility to convene eurozone country summits as necessary. He had actually done so on 22 March and 7 May without asking anyone's permission or worrying about whether the lawyers would agree - and the two impromptu summits took important decisions…
Does this amount to failure for the French president? Of course not! It is a victory for common sense, for a workable solution. Incidentally, it doesn't make any sense to regret the time of Mitterrand and Kohl while criticising Merkel and Sarkozy because their dialogue leads to ideas being submitted to the EU institutions.
3) How to ensure the “Community method” is safe. EU institutions' concern about creeping expansion of the intergovernmental method at the expense of the Community method is understandable and justified. The European Council, with its new permanent president and monthly meetings, inevitably carries political clout, and agreements reached by the European Council do not always strike a balance among the EU institutions, but at the same time, the system does get EU heads of state involved in the nitty-gritty of how the EU operates and this is highly positive, crucial even. Why crucial?
Angela Merkel has pointed out that European governance means that all aspects of economic life have to be discussed by countries together, including areas where sovereign rights are untouchable, like welfare systems, pensions, pay and education, where individual countries have autonomous power but discuss matters with each other. Merkel recognises that the vast number of issues where the EU has power have to be dealt with using the Community method, paying due respect to the powers of the European Parliament and the European Commission.
The EP is making full use of its new powers and gradually taking on the role of legislator with startling efficiency (with a dusting of rabble-rousing at times in areas where its powers are not so clear-cut). The Commission is doing better these days in its management and initiative role, and we are witnessing the Council (even the European Council) expecting and demanding draft legislation and other documents. This reminds me of a comment by former pPresident of the Commission, Romano Prodi: “There is no alternative to the Commission. People get it into their heads at times to try and take action without the Commission, but in the end, the Commission is always there doing its work as normal because no important action is possible without an independent body, a capable administration and the political ability to act.”
If the EP keeps up its fighting spirit and its jealous guarding of its powers, and if the Commission continues to carry out its work (often involving trying to get the EP and Council of Ministers to compromise), then the Community method will be safe.
(F.R./transl.fl)