Drafted and signed. It is quite in vogue to criticise the inefficiency of the EU institutions faced with the revolutions unfolding in the Arab world. This is not a criticism I share. It is, however, true that the effects of the Lisbon Treaty on the way in which the EU functions at an institutional level, have gone beyond the intentions and expectations of the European Commission. A reduction in its role and scope of initiative has been overtly denounced by Jacques Delors. For me, the key question is: Do the European Council and its permanent presidency have powers that reduce the scope of the Commission?
Herman Van Rompuy explained how he sees this development, in the European Council's 2010 activity report, which he himself drafted and signed.
Opening up new horizons. First of all, the president of the European Council pointed out that the institution over which he presides brings together “the highest leaders in the Union” (including the president of the Commission), that Ms Ashton takes part in the Council's work, that other senior figures are also often invited, and that he was behind the initiative to organise and preside over two sessions reserved for eurozone countries. After this explanation, he defined its activity: “We decide what the political priorities are together and define the Union's strategic course. We also assume our responsibilities in crisis situations”. He regards the European Council as now being able to “open up new horizons”, which already appears to indicate that the Commission no longer has the exclusive right of initiative. He explained the summit's three-phase decision-making process, which “has constituted the most far reaching reform of economic and monetary union since the creation of the euro”, particularly the meeting in which eurozone countries adopted the Greek rescue plan. The president of the European Council added that “in the space of 48 hours, in response to the request from heads of state and government, the European Commission presented a proposal”.
The most spectacular case. Mr Van Rompuy subsequently indicated that it is the European Council which conferred on him personally the presidency of the “working group on economic governance”, in charge of developing the broad guidelines for future permanent crisis prevention and management mechanisms (including the enhanced stability and growth pact) and the limited modification of the Lisbon Treaty. Mr Van Rompuy is well aware of the rules of good manners and he therefore highlighted the fact that he had worked “in close cooperation with the Commission” (as well as with the president of the Eurogroup and the European Central Bank) and he did not forget to add that “the contribution made by the Commission was essential”. Nevertheless, he also affirmed that the members of the European Council had “vigorously” defended their collective decisions when addressing national parliaments and therefore confirmed the strong political links uniting member states.
Relations with third countries. Mr Van Rompuy's considerations about the EU's external relations are the same: it is the European Council that defines the strategic interests, decides its priorities and determines its orientations. The president of the Commission attends but he does not decide or propose anything. Mr Barroso can also represent the EU in talks with third countries but according to the modalities that Van Rompuy fails to clearly define, he refers to “an agreement between the president of the Commission and myself as the best way to represent the Union during different international meetings”. This enables him, like all the others, according to the case in question to “talk and listen on behalf of the EU27”. We are no wiser about this question.
Progress? According to Mr Van Rompuy, the current situation represents progress because the European Council has become a Community institution. The Commission maintains its central role of author of legislative proposals and guardian of the Treaty, and the Parliament becomes the Council's partner on an equal footing in the legislative process. For the European Council this results in “democratic legitimacy, which is completely essential”. He is aware that “certain circles in Brussels” claim that the European Council would damage this legitimacy but he considers that this view “is very strange” because heads of state and government are perfectly legitimate; the Community method is safeguarded insofar as the EU has the remit to take action and that with regard to the scope of member states, “the choice is not one of between the Community and intergovernmental methods but between a European position and nothing at all”.
The evolution stemming from the Lisbon Treaty is therefore obvious. The Commission, however, maintains its fundamental role when the European Council has nothing to say. This was observed in the recent meeting between Mr Barroso and Mr Putin on the energy dossier, where Mr Barroso defended the EU's position on aspects that the European Council did not dare to broach. In tomorrow's rendezvous, a number of conclusions will be made.
(F.R./transl.fl)