Much more than a procedure. How can one convince public opinion that the "Community method" is the catalyst behind half a century of European integration and has to be maintained if the EU is to have a chance of reaching its new objectives? As we know (see this section of yesterday's edition), the institutional debate can neither inspire the masses nor meet citizens' expectations, but it is still necessary to try and convince citizens to make an exception for the Community method (which is far more than just a mechanism or procedure - it is a mentality, a way of thinking and acting, a way of being open to one's neighbours in real life and taking their interests into as much consideration as one's own).
People know about decision-making in the traditional manner (negotiations between countries) and how it has failed in centuries past. Alliances, treaties and bilateral agreements are made and broken in line with changing events - a royal marriage or election results can put everything at risk. Who's going to ensure that the interests of the weakest and least significant will be properly taken into consideration? The danger of a Directory is always in the background. Who's going to ensure the decision-making process is transparent? The Community method provides the answer to all these questions and the best solution discovered to date because:
a) initiatives are taken by the European Commission, independently of governments, and as the representative of European interests, the Commission has the "exclusive right" to put forward proposals;
b) the Council, composed of government representatives, decides (often by qualified majority) but can only move away from a Commission proposal by unanimous decision which provides reasonable guarantees against the risk of the national interest of any particular country coming above the general European interest;
c) the Council cannot take any decisions without the European Parliament, which used to be simply consulted but now has co-legislative power in an increasing number of decisions. This means that the EP can amend or oppose texts and that the Council and Parliament have to agree on a common text (otherwise the legislation is abandoned). The dialectic between Commission/Council/Parliament gives rise to discussions and open debate at the Parliament where all aspects of a specific dossier are considered. The Commission and government alike have recognised that the Parliament's intervention often leads to an improvement on the initial draft and has occasionally led to a text being abandoned - who can forget the case of regulating takeovers and acquisitions? I'm not trying to suggest that particular text was bad (Mr Bolkestein is convinced of its usefulness) - what I'm trying to explain is that the Community method guarantees that all plans are discussed from every angle. This gives particular protection to small Member States against any pressure the big states may apply.
As we can see, the Community method is far more than simply voting by qualified majority (often presented as the key characteristic of the Community method compared with the intergovernmental method).
Rage or smile? The Community method was the brilliant inspiration of the fathers of Europe who laid the foundations for the entire European project. I'm not sure whether one should rage or smile when one reads in the draft "Laeken declaration" prepared under Guy Verhofstadt's responsibility phrases along the lines of "The European Union was gradually and tentatively pieced together. It started off as predominantly economic and technical co-operation… From 1952 onwards, a coal and steel community was created and other economic activities followed later, like agriculture." (Unofficial translation.) Those narrow-minded technocrats and bureaucrats, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi, Jean Monnet, Paul-Henri Spaak and a little later Sicco Mansholt and a handful of others, so lacking in political vision and ambition! Has the boldness of the initial steps really disappeared from memory? They started off by saying that coal and steel (which at the time were the cornerstones of military power) were neither French nor German and were taken away from national authority to be controlled by a "High Supranational Authority" which monitored production and decided how to allocate coal and steel between Member States in the event of crisis. This vision and audacity is described by Guy Verhofstadt's staff as "economic and technical co-operation".
We can hope that the phrases quoted above (and others) will be removed from the Laeken declaration and that this European Council will be inspired by the message from across the Channel - when Tony Blair explained the meaning and advantages of European integration to the British. (F.R.)