A non-existent document. Has the General Affairs Council itself decided not to take on the task of coordinating the work of the different specialised Councils? The way in which preparations for the Stockholm Summit have gone seems to point that way. Each specialised Council has done its job, with greater or lesser success, in drawing up the many documents that are to be submitted to the Heads of State or Government on Friday and Saturday; but the "General" Council has not even attempted to examine the differences that remain (see this section in our bulletin dated 19/20 March, pp.3/4). The Swedish Presidency has, moreover, decided that the Ministers of the Economy and Finance should take part in all the work of the Summit relating to the "Lisbon Strategy", which may have a certain logic, but further reduces the role of Foreign Ministers and has aroused the displeasure of Ministers of Employment and Social Affairs, very attached as they are to the balance between the economic and social chapters, essential characteristic of the Lisbon Strategy. This balance has on the whole been respected in the preparatory work; now this seems to have been, at least formally, abandoned in talks at the highest level.
What are the Fifteen going to do in Stockholm? Either they limit themselves to taking on board in their "conclusions" those aspects on which agreement has been reached at ministerial level, and for the rest not go beyond a political impetus. Or they have a genuine debate on issues remaining open and, for some of them, seek solutions. In the former case, the scope and utility of this session of the European Council are considerably reduced (even though the political impetus and "visibility" of a summit always have an echo that amounts to a positive outcome in itself). In the latter case, the Fifteen would have needed a recapitulative document, setting out the results achieved, and especially the differences that remained, with solutions and compromises; document that, precisely,… does not exist.
The Commission has played its role. Could the Commission have drawn up such a document? Not officially, as, on all aspects under discussion, it has already expressed its stance, and, in most cases, it cannot and must not alter it. On the contrary, it has to defend its positions robustly, be it over the "Galileo" project or the European patent, the accelerated liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets or the integrated financial market. Sure, the Commission must try to retain "intellectual control" over the Summit to advise and direct the Heads of Government, but has not to play the role of a secretariat nor itself propose "low-grade compromises". This time, the Commission seems to have played its role to the full, having provided all the preparatory documents. But should the final phase of preparations escape Community procedures, the risk of the European Council sliding towards a "G8"-type mechanism worsens (where the most powerful dominate)
There is a model of reform. Here we are back at the beginning: coordination between the work of the different Council formations no longer exists. It should be the task of the General Affairs Council, but, as currently organised, it does not and cannot exercise it. Foreign Ministers, absorbed as they are by their already overwhelming diplomatic responsibilities (at national level and also increasingly at European level), no longer have the possibility nor the desire to begin negotiating the timetable for the liveralisation of the electricity market or the four differences over the European patent. And so, a reform of the General Affairs Council is more than ever called for. According to the model that has received the greatest backing, it should be split into two: an "External Relations" Council, made up of Foreign Ministers, and a "Coordination" Council, made up of ministers who, in each government, have the responsibility for European affairs (and, essential condition, who must be close to their Prime Minister), who would meet in Brussels twice a month.
It's not a new idea, far from it. How many times have we not referred to it in this section…The latest joint document drawn up by Jacques Delors' "Notre Europe" and Viscount Davignon's "Friends of Europe", that emerged from a Round Table, offer precious indications (see our bulletin of 26/27 February, p.8). Certainly, putting this project into practice raises difficulties, notably for coalition governments, and adjustments to current projects would be necessary. But the time has come for the Fifteen to begin giving it serious thought, rather than limiting themselves to discussing the reforms of other institutions, on which they can waffle on for ever. (F.R.)