At the very time that dramatic events are unsettling the normal way in which the EU operates, it is useful to underline that its vitality has been confirmed by initiatives from certain leading figures working at the institutions.
Barnier initiative: support and concerns. In a personal capacity, Commissioner Michel Barnier has launched a project divided into three different parts: ensuring that the roles performed by the president of the European Council and the president of the Commission are undertaken by the same person; putting foreign and defence policy into practice through structured cooperation, as laid down by the Lisbon Treaty; and setting up a European civil protection force (EUROPE 10375).
The first part of this project is thought-provoking and also, at the same time, raises a number of objections. The person nominated as the single president of the EU would be proposed by the heads of state and government and appointed by a Congress, which brings together the European Parliament and representatives from member states' national parliaments. It cannot be ruled out that one day this figure will be directly elected by the people. It is an ambitious project. Concerns are related to the fact that in Community dialectics, the roles of the two presidents are quite different: the Commission has the exclusive right to make proposals and its president will obviously defend and argue what it has proposed at the Council, whereas the president of the European Council is obliged to take into account the different national positions and attempt to establish a possible compromise. If the same person exercises these two functions, what will the objective be? Would it be to defend the Commission projects or take into account the different positions of the member states?
The current situation involving two presidents, who speak on behalf of the EU in the world, initially created a number of difficulties and gave rise to a number of conflicts involving remit and responsibilities. Nonetheless, Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso found a reasonable and constructive modus vivendi. They meet each week, sometimes jointly sign the different positions taken and even documents, whilst respecting their respective areas of competency and responsibility. Mixing up the roles risks encroaching on the Commission's freedom to take initiatives. If the Commission exercises its right to make autonomous and daring decisions, the single president would find it difficult to preside over the European Council where he/she would have to attempt to reconcile the positions of all the different member states.
The two other aspects of the Barnier plan are expected to receive broad support because the time is right to use the potential contained within the Lisbon Treaty, at least between the member states that wish to do so. The final detail in this question involves the fact that the commissioner is again using the term, “Federation of nation states” to define the nature of the EU.
Ms Ashton's remit and limitations. The solemn speech made last week by Catherine Ashton to the European Parliament (EUROPE 10376) was a genuine plea for democracy to go beyond its superficial facets (right to vote, freedom of the press) and for it to also involve religious freedom and equality between men and women, etc. The tone of her speech was firmer than usual and the European Parliament, which had sharply criticised her previously, spurred her on and encouraged her to take action and take a position on behalf of Europe on all current issues, even the most inflammatory ones. It encouraged her to become the inspiration, the guarantor and spokesperson for European defence and security policy. In short, according to Elmar Brok, she should be audacious and take the initiative and “lead instead of follow”.
The Parliament is asking too much of her. It is true that Ms Ashton has appeared much more at ease since the diplomatic service she heads has become operational. Nevertheless, she cannot and will never be able to define and propose European positions ahead of the heads of state or government. It is understandable that the Belgian minister for foreign affairs is afraid that everything would be decided by the heads of the big countries, without taking into account the other member states, and that he would like a more real and visible role for the high representative. There are, however, limitations on Ms Ashton's freedom to take initiatives.
This column has already denounced the absurdity of the accumulative nature of her three roles - vice president of the Commission, president of the External Relations Council, head of the diplomatic service - because it considers that she should concentrate on the third role. This is indeed what is actually happening: the role of Commission vice president does not really exist at all and the idea that she is able to independently define positions and speak on behalf of the EU is an illusion. It is not the vice president who will be deciding on military intervention in Libya or on sanctions against tyranny in Syria! Nevertheless, her active participation in international bodies is more necessary than ever, drawing on the expertise of the diplomatic corps, which has perhaps expanded beyond requirements, but which is taking an increasingly operational role. Strengthening the EU's position at the UN is also, indirectly, one of her accomplishments. It now appears that she has overcome the period when she was expected to resign or when she would receive a vote of no confidence from the EP. Within the limits of her role, and with Mr Vimont at her side, her effectiveness is becoming much more apparent. (F.R./transl.fl)