Community or inter-governmental? Whatever the results of the summit, the institutional questions will not be sorted out on this occasion. These are questions of long date, which will largely determine the future of European construction and will be difficult to resolve. We only need look at the comparison in our publication yesterday of the Franco-German position and the Polish Presidency of the Council press release, to witness the huge gulf between them. The debates that are held will influence future developments but divergences will persist. The challenge, as we are aware, involves deciding whether the EU will remain a single entity or whether it will evolve towards a two-speed Europe, mainly characterised by the separation between eurozone countries and the others. This is the biggest aspect of all and has provoked the most discussions and even fears. Nonetheless, there are also questions regarding how the institutions function, particularly their autonomy and powers. This conflict is often summed up in the following formula: Community or inter-governmental?
Balance between the EP and national parliaments. Figures such as Jacques Delors and Giorgio Napolitano denounce the shift towards the inter-governmental method, as well as the risk of Europe being led by the most powerful member states. In certain areas, such as management of the euro, the power of the states is even explicitly asserted and demanded, particularly in Paris and Berlin. Nonetheless, I consider it wise to avoid delivering any rash condemnations. The prerogatives of states are a difficult question, given that the billions of euros involved belong to them. National parliaments cannot be sidelined. As much can be said with regard to national budgets and it is these very parliaments that agreed to the European semester, the period in which these budget projects are examined in Brussels, and the possibility of the European Commission formulating certain comments in this respect, together with preliminary debates at the Council and the European Parliament. The balance between the EP and the national parliaments is crucial.
Conflicts regarding the different remits cannot be overcome by institutional squabbles (which have already provoked a number of considerable complications, particularly in Germany) but through increasingly closer collaboration between the European Parliament and the national parliaments. In theory, this cooperation has already existed for several years but it has also been managed in a spirit of rivalry and conflict over different competences. It was not that long ago that this was transformed into a spirit more conducive to cooperation, thanks to the efforts made by small groups of MEPs from two different political spectrums. The European Parliament is obviously concerned about being able to exercise its remit and powers, which are clearly superior to those previously held. It is also concerned with maintaining its higher profile. Rivalry and competition will not help anybody.
Between rivalry and cooperation. Cooperation between the Council (at the different levels) and the European Commission is also making progress. Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy have significantly increased the number of joint initiatives and their joint signing of documents. This behaviour is quite appropriate, particularly given current public opinion and relations with third countries that are often difficult given the EU's institutional complications. Nonetheless, this attempt to establish clarity and co-operation is not preventing Mr Barroso defending the autonomy and powers of the Commission: he is doing this with increasing firmness and energy. I am aware that this is not an opinion shared by everybody but his initiatives with regard to, for example, eurobonds and the financial transactions tax (Tobin tax), together with the detailed documents that accompany them, appear to explicitly indicate the determination to safeguard and relaunch the role of the Commission. Mr Barroso affirmed that the economic government of the EU exists. He also explained that “certain inter-governmental trends could lead to the death of Europe that we all desire”.
One absurdity removed. I also have to indicate that a certain wisdom has returned with regard to the role played by Ms Ashton. This is not a legal development, but rather something that has occurred on the ground. Fortunately, she does not create the impression that she is carrying out her role of vice president of the Commission with any regularity or providing orientations to Mr De Gucht on trade policy. I believe that she no longer attends the weekly Commission meetings regularly. I also have to revise the opinion I previously held on the subject and I consider it positive that Ms Ashton focuses exclusively on her increasing role at the Council. These few remarks do not change the fundamental question regarding the increasing chasm between the eurozone and those outside it. The arrival of new member states will also further reinforce this divisive trend, which even Jacques Delors appears to consider as incontrovertible. (FR/transl.fl)