Bravery is a quality shared by entrepreneurs, inventors, soldiers and gamblers, but in various contexts, it can also be a political virtue. As long ago as 19 BC, Virgil knew that fortune favours the brave. The Council of the EU is made up of national ministers. In the history of every nation, there have been important ministers, who have been successful in public life (even if they have not necessarily risen to become heads of government). The importance they achieved, whether in the fields of education, foreign affairs, justice or any of countless others, can in all cases be imputed to their daring.
Bravery, therefore, goes hand in hand with political courage and impatience to get the job done. The brave will always reject a lesser option in favour of an alternative that is capable of pulling the project upwards.
Without question, there have been dossiers on which the Council of the EU has worked quickly: for instance, the current sanctions against Russia. The political agreement of 20 June on the proposed ‘Nature Restoration’ regulation (see EUROPE 13205/12), reached one year after it was tabled by the Commission, can even be credited to the Council and in particular to the Swedish Presidency, while the European Parliament remains bogged down in its at divisions.
But in the final analysis, slowness is the rule rather than the exception. The ‘anti-discrimination’ directive has been at stalemate since 2008 and there was zero progress in the last meeting to discuss it (see EUROPE 13200/28). We are still waiting for a revisit of the regulation proposed in 2016 on the coordination of the social security rules: in late April, the Swedish Presidency failed to win a majority to negotiate with the European Parliament (see EUROPE 13172/23). Before the Capital Markets Union can be sealed and delivered, there are eight outstanding dossiers needing to be adopted (see EUROPE 13196/22).
The concept of Conference on the Future of Europe was both justified and brave. The Council played dead and dropped the pretence only in order to make sure that it retained the governance of the process. Last year, the Parliament voted through a request to hold a Convention to work towards treaty reform; the ball is in the Council’s court and it appears to have no intention of returning it.
The idea of the European electoral constitution was floated well before the most recent European elections. Strongly favoured by the Parliament, it would see 28 members of the European Parliament registered on trans-national lists next spring. Basically, instead of the European elections coming as well as each country’s national elections, the European elections would start to become Europeanised. A great minister would have persuaded his colleagues by making a vibrant case for the future of European democracy. The Presidents of the Council would rather not take position and just organised a survey instead. The result of this survey was unequivocal: the vast majority of member states are opposed to any reform of EU electoral law (see EUROPE 13207/16): long live the status quo!
Under the ordinary legislative procedure, it is clear that on almost every point, the Council’s position is less ambitious than that of the Commission and far less so than that of the Parliament. For instance, the common position adopted on 9 June on the ‘abusive lawsuits’ directive leaves victims with far less protection than in the Commission proposal (see EUROPE 13198/2). Effectively, the Council is limiting the Commission’s scope for action, as it did in the case of the regulation establishing the emergency instrument on single market (see EUROPE 13196/3).
Since November 2022, the European Media Freedom Act has been challenged and watered down more and more at each meeting, in the name of national security. The agreement reached on 21 June (see EUROPE 13206/1) was the fruit of a compromise that pared down both protection of sources and the European dimension of the project, greatly to the disappointment of journalists’ associations, which are now pinning all their hopes on the European Parliament.
Although the proposed directive setting out to protect platform workers has been on the table since December 2021, the Council has turned it into a never-ending story, which the predecessor Czech Presidency’s struggled over, and which rumbled on until 12 June, when a common position was adopted (see EUROPE 13199A1). Neither France, which has blocked it for a long time for internal reasons, nor Germany, which had no opinion either way, gained any greatness from the episode. On the substance, the presumption of salaried employment broke down and ultimately, workers’ protection will only be improved if the Parliament, which is prepared to be bolder, scores a few point.
Progress at the Council on the directive on renewable energies can also be measured in baby steps, in the name of low-carbon hydrogen, in spite of the agreement reached with the European Parliament on 30 March. This point, which had been removed from the agenda of Coreper, will be restored to it following a letter to the Presidency from concerned parties (see EUROPE 13197/32). On 19 June, following the addition of a recital, the Council agreement was reached, albeit amid little or no guts or glory (see EUROPE 13204/3).
Within the Council, the ministers represent the national governments, pursuant to the treaties. Each one of them, therefore, defends his or her own country’s position. However, the Council is also an institute of the European Union and deserves not to be devalued. As the Council needs to produce a result, an ‘output’, its credit depends on the quality of these, as well as the time taken to gestate the decision. Effectively, then, the ministers are just the mouthpieces of their country, taking part in exercise of collective intelligence at – it is to be hoped – a very high level.
Going back to bravery, one might counter-argue that progress has been made towards a greater use of qualified majority voting at the Council. It is true that a group of member states has been created: ‘the friends of qualified majority voting’. Another two may yet follow suit: excellent! That makes 11 member state out of 27, a mere third.
Bravery will remain in the minority.
Renaud Denuit