The most considerable development in the debate on the future of Europe was, as far as I'm concerned, the report by Jacques Poos on the reform of the EU Council. Once again, the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affair established, under the chairmanship of Giorgio Napolitano, a paper of great worth and interest. I shall not summarise it as that has already been done, in an excellent fashion, in our bulletin of 27 September, p.6. I would simply add that the aforementioned Parliamentary Committee adopted it by 17 votes to 1 (and 7 abstentions) and that it will be discussed and voted on in plenary at a forthcoming session.
For a long time now, the General Affairs Council has not exercised the role of co-ordinator of Community activities as a whole (specialised Councils increasingly work autonomously, preparations for the EcoFin Council and JHA Council are to a large extent carried out outside the traditional channels) and its competences have been eaten away upwardly by the European Council and downwardly by the Committee of Permanent Representatives. Many formulae have been put forward to regenerate the Council, the most famous (but not the most reasonable) being that of the German Socialist Party, aimed at transforming it into a second chamber of the European Parliament (the Chamber of States), handing it exclusively a legislative role, the European Commission being transformed into a European government. It is unrealistic to reduce the role of States in that way, in a Union that has no intention of creating a European super-State but tends rather to become a Federation of Nation-States, according the Jacques Delors' formula (at times criticised from a legal point of view but politically fortunate as political message).
The ideas scheme of things set out by Jacques Poos take account of the many thoughts that followed the German paper and may be summarised in three points:
- the Council would retain its dual legislative and executive role, but these being clearly separated one from the other. When acting as legislator, its deliberations and votes would be held in public;
- the General Affairs Council (GAC) would again assume the responsibility of co-ordinating all Community activities. To that end, the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) would resume its sole role of preparation, and the GAC itself would meet much more often, preferably every week, not necessarily composed of Foreign Ministers (absorbed by their specific tasks linked to foreign relations) but "ministers delegated by national governments, exercising within those governments the role of co-ordination and with the necessary political authority". This formula allows for freedom of choice, necessary as the different countries do not have the same constitutional rules; for some it would be the deputy prime minister, for others the minister of European affairs. What is important is that they should have the indispensable "political authority";
- the European Council would retain its "role of policy direction", leaving aside details and, for decision-taking, respecting the "Community method" (notably, the European Commission's right of initiative and Parliament's role of co-legislator).
This scheme is accompanied by several related measures: mechanisms for involving national parliaments in preparing Council decisions; substantial reduction in Council formations and the number of their committees; separation of the role of High Representative for Cfsp from that of Council Secretary General (the high Representative should be a Commission Vice-President); EP's right of intervention in Council deliberations subject to the co-decision procedure; permanent dialogue between the Council and political groups. Other suggestions seem less realistic, for example the rule by which all national governments should meet on Fridays (it is feasible, but it is not up to the EU to demand it), or the prohibition of Council members from convening press conferences before the official one by the President of the Council (who may prohibit a minister meeting the press?).
Nothing is final, but the Poos Report seems to me to be a solid basis for future work. In particular, recognition of the role of the European Council is essential, as well as abandoning the dangerous dream of making of the European Commission the EU government. The Heads of State or Government will never abandon their direct responsibilities in European affairs, and they provide prestige, visibility and democratic legitimacy. Who could have assumed in their place the responsibility of defining Europe's stance in relation to the tragic events of 11 September? Who could have approved, through unanimity, the two texts of 14 and 21 September? The problem is not that of distancing the Heads of Government, but of introducing the Community method in preparing their deliberations and their decisions. (F.R.)
European Parliament plenary Session