Reasons for very positive balance sheet. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to consider that the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU, which effectively came to an end this week, was one of the best presidencies of recent times. Several factors contributed to this positive assessment, including, perhaps, the absence of a national government in full possession of its powers. This anomaly effectively enabled Belgian ministers to almost exclusively focus on the European task of developing compromises and permanently negotiating with a European Parliament eager to ensure that its increased powers were exerted. The presidents of the different branches of the Council were largely able to focus on European issues and the secretary of state in charge of coordination was able to focus on this task full time. There was obviously the geographical advantage of being located in Brussels: each minister just had one or two roads to negotiate for getting to the Community Council or Brussels premises of the European Parliament. These advantages would not, however, have proved so effective if they had not been accompanied by knowledge of the different dossiers and by the customary nature of the Belgian political class to play an intermediary role in Europe between the different national positions, and its capacity to define compromise.
Therefore, in cooperation with the European Commission, combined with the combative and prickly engagement of the Parliament, it was possible for the Belgian Presidency to push forward essential dossiers such as financial supervision (in a number of different areas), the principle of economic governance, the adoption of the 2011 budget (which proved difficult), the European patent (although two member states do not agree…) and the Citizens' Initiative. It also made as much progress as possible with the accession applications, even though there are cases of persisting deadlock, for example, in the negotiations with Turkey. I suggest that our publication yesterday be consulted for the balance sheet drawn up by the Belgian minister for foreign affairs, Steven Vanackere.
A more complex situation. Presented in its current form, this balance sheet is, nonetheless, too utopian and therefore rather superficial. The Belgian Presidency was, in fact, the first comprehensive experience of EU institutional evolution, characterised, in particular, by the almost monthly timing of European Council meetings which, as we are aware, have a permanent presidency and whose work is not within the remit of the rotating presidency. A certain number of achievements underlined by Mr Vanackere effectively derive from the orientations defined by the summit and the compromises were reached at a level of heads of state and government. It is true that the different Council groupings have the often complex task of subsequently developing the texts for application and negotiating them with Parliament. The orientations and compromises, however, came from above. Let's not forget that the other considerations specifically involving the eurozone, were developed by the Eurogroup, which also has a permanent president (Jean-Claude Juncker) and that the daily management of EU foreign policy depends upon, and will increasingly depend upon, the European diplomatic service, autonomously headed by a high representative, who is at the same time… vice president of the European Commission. It should not be forgotten that the Belgian Presidency did encounter difficulties in certain cases where unanimity is required and where one member state was effectively able to block a number of compromises with the European Parliament.
The unanimity obstacle. It was not Steven Vanackere who spoke about this aspect in his official balance sheet. It was the secretary of state for European affairs, Olivier Chastel, who prepared and continuously followed up the different dossiers. A few days before the release of the balance sheet, Chastel did not mince his words and I will quote from his interview to Maroun Labaki (Le Soir): “Major decisions are still being stymied or opposed by a few states. There are still a certain number of member states (and not the smallest of them) that wish to keep their prerogatives. This is very debilitating when we are having to deal with the US, China, India or Brazil. It is this that sometimes gives the impression that Europe's engine is not working properly. I am saddened by the observation that these countries, which still consider themselves as major powers, are nothing when faced with the different blocks facing them.” Mr Chastel was certainly speaking in a moment of vexation, whilst having to present the European Parliament with a specific position from the Council, which resulted from the attitude of a single member state. Nonetheless, the question of unanimity, sometimes stipulated in the Lisbon Treaty, persists and can block the work of a Presidency. This did not lead to Mr Chastel becoming less enthusiastic about his European experience (“my most wonderful experience since entering politics”) and considering that (in agreement with the whole of his government) the Belgian six month Presidency had been very positive and had created the foundations for further constructive developments.
It is now for the Hungarian Presidency to have its say. This column will obviously be returning to this issue.
(F.R./transl.fl)