Institutions, a few aspects in need of clarification. The reflections of this column yesterday on the EU's prospects call forth a few comments on its institutional functioning, which is evolving significantly and has to prove its efficiency, whilst consolidating its democratic nature.
Avoiding misunderstandings. Relations between the Institutions, each with its own responsibilities and powers, are not always easy. The most sensitive aspect concerns relations between the Parliament and the Commission. In December of last year, the presentation by Jean-Claude Juncker of the intentions of the Commission he chairs awoke a number of reservations, some of them fairly animated, in the MEPs, at least on one aspect.
Mr Juncker told the Parliament that the Commission will make rapid and sweeping reductions to the volume of its initiatives, focusing on projects which are likely to be adopted by the Council without any complications. The days when the Commission presented a hundred projects a year, or even more, are in the past, he believes. It was in this context that Mr Juncker, together with his principal collaborator, Mr Timmermans, announced that the Commission would shelve 83 legislative acts of the 452 active ones (EUROPE 11219).
A number of members of the European Parliament passionately expressed their disagreement and astonishment, even before the press. They felt that Mr Juncker had given the impression of not wanting genuine cooperation between the Institutions (Commission and EP in particular) and reducing the EU's activities to a single common denominator: economic questions. A part of the EP believes that arguing that the current priority is a return to growth and employment is tantamount to giving up on Europe's ambitions.
This, clearly, is a misunderstanding. The desire of the vast majority of the European Parliament to play an active role in Community orientations is not in question. Economic issues are a major part, if not the very foundation, of its importance on the global scene. Eurosceptic or anti-Community tendencies currently have sufficient representation over at the EP and this is not the right time to create an artificial conflict. The Commission stands alone in its initiatives, the Parliament is free to react to and assess these. Each Institution has its own responsibilities.
Simplifying and trimming down the Summits? Donald Tusk, the new President of the European Council, made it clear that he feels that the Summits are, in many cases, overly long and give rise to far too many texts. The conclusions list a series of decisions previously taken at Foreign Minister level and certain governments insert comments of national interest, which it can then flag up back at home.
The upshot is that the conclusions of the Summits are becoming indecipherable to the general public and that people are put off from reading the official statements (they also reduce the interest and curiosity in the press conference of the President of the European Council, as journalists concentrate instead on the “national” press conferences of the various heads of state or government).
I believe that Donald Tusk will succeed in pushing through just one aspect of his reform: making the conclusions more interesting and easier to read. However, the journalists from all forms of media will continue to prioritise the press conferences of “their” head of state or government and will focus less on the Community press conference of the President of the European Council, flanked by the President of the Commission and the (rotating) President of the Council of the EU.
Greece and the euro: political and legal confusion. At the moment, everybody interprets the rules on the single currency as he or she sees fit. Some state that Greece cannot remain in the eurozone if it fails to respect the rules, others argue that membership of the single currency is irrevocable. And a third group feels that the new Greek government born of the elections of the end of January will refuse to bend to the rules and will automatically have to leave the euro, whilst others again firmly believe that this is legally impossible. And many others hold that in order to leave the eurozone, a country would have to leave the EU at the same time.
We await the results of the elections of 25 January with considerable impatience.
As we know, legal battles can go on for a long time, whilst major decisions will have to be taken in just a few weeks; obviously, the eurozone will have to continue to go about its business one way or another to avoid confusion on the markets and speculation in the world of finance (although this already exists!). The political authorities must act fast, but we don't yet know how.
(FR)