Invention during the storm. The MEPs who denounced the dangerous shift in European policy away from the “Community method” towards the “intergovernmental method” have scored their first goal: the president of the European Council has seriously taken into consideration their fears and answered them in his Paris speech (most of which was summarised in our publication yesterday). It was a solemn occasion: a debate organised by Our Europe in the Political Science Department's amphitheatre, in Paris, under the chairmanship of Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa and with the participation of Jacques Delors. The theme was fairly general, “Europe's major challenges” but allowed Herman Van Rompuy, the invited speaker, to explain and justify the slow march of the EU, the European tortoise, which first, in the face of the financial crisis, took a slow, hesitant but definitive step, which surprised all onlookers. In foreign policy, the EU is also progressing step-by-step. The responsibilities and the way in which the European Council functions are not clearly laid out in the Lisbon Treaty but if there is something that is not clear in the text, it is up to the human factor to provide the response. Mr Van Rompuy could have given the example of how he himself arranged for heads of state and government from the eurozone to attend a kind of select European Council, which was not stipulated in the text of the treaty. He did not cite this example but he did point out that in order to provide support for Greece, “there was no instrument in the treaty to do what we actually did. We had to invent everything while the full force of the storm was blowing”.
A common position or nothing at all. The Union is not a state and the procedures are therefore complex. Mr Van Rompuy recognised that “monetary union without budgetary union” is an anomaly, “a building defect, and the original sin of the euro. But without this original sin, the euro would not even have been born!” In response to the question of whether the euro can live with this anomaly, his response was an unambiguous yes! He explained that “our response capacity was demonstrated quite clearly during the crisis”. It is now necessary to respect the rules and commitments, which was not the case in the past. In this task, the European Council is essential and it is in this respect that the question of the method is posed: “Why did heads of state and government play a key role in European economic governance during the crisis and why will they undoubtedly do so beyond it?”
According to Mr Van Rompuy, the opposition between the Community method and the intergovernmental method is a “false debate. It is normal when decisions are taken, involving the foundations of the currency and extraordinary sums of money, that responsibility is assumed by the heads of government. The European Council is the place where the different actors can find common and therefore European positions. We do this in close cooperation with the other institutions: the Commission (whose president is a member of the European Council), the Council of Ministers, the European Central Bank and the Parliament - all ensure that this contact is one of the main tasks”. It is also understandable that certain governments have involved their national parliaments because support for Greece “ultimately falls on the shoulders of national taxpayers”. It is in this context that Mr Van Rompuy used the sentence quoted in our publication yesterday: “Often, the choice is not between the Community and intergovernmental methods, but between a European position and nothing at all”.
The task of the summit. The same principles were applied by Mr Van Rompuy in his Paris speech on the other essential domain in which the European Council is increasingly engaged - EU external relations (see this column yesterday). In its relations with its strategic partners, Europe cannot restrict itself to simply sending out messages; instruments are also required for taking action, demanding reciprocity, entering into the game of concessions and give-and-take. The question is not about creating theories but rather “making concrete progress on concrete problems, step-by-step”. The summary of his speech (see our publication yesterday) gives some of the examples and Mr Van Rompuy also spoke in the context mentioned yesterday in this section. In Paris he described the European Council as a “very bizarre institution, which neither belongs to the legislative power nor the executive power and whose objective is to provide the major orientations, whilst coordinating the tasks of the different institutions”.
The EP's initial response. It is up to the European Parliament to have its say, if it so wishes. An initial partial response was by way of setting up the Spinelli Group (EUROPE 10216) which suggested that it meets up before every European Council as the Shadow Council, in an effort to indicate its positions on points on the heads of state and governments' agenda. Vigilance remains.
(F.R./transl.fl)