Unjustified amazement. A curious interpretation of the institutional dialectic and Community Method! I am referring to the chorus of rising protest (even in the pressrooms) every time a European Commission proposal is rejected by the Council or Parliament, or each time an important national body criticises the Commission. We therefore have the right to sing mournfully of the Commission's reduced prestige and the European spirit trampled under foot. And yet, this is nothing other than the normal functioning of the "Community Method". This method does not at all require that the Commission is always right, on the contrary, it is founded on a balance of power: the Commission (among other things) has the right of initiative, the Council and the Parliament, legislative power. What would be the use of the Union's very complex institutional mechanism, if the goal were simply to accept everything the Commission put forward? The Parliament regularly amends the texts which are submitted to it, the Council does the same thing - but we forget this too often -it can't distance itself from a Commission project other than by a unanimous decision. Where there are divergences between the two branches of executive power, it is the conciliation procedure that intervenes and it is often the Commission that plays the role of arbiter.
Increased Legitimacy. We therefore have a system that is both clear and balanced, which takes into account European and legitimate national interests and which bestows each institution with an equal amount of dignity. It allows for legislation to be improved and, importantly, that its legitimacy increases. European legislation that didn't have majority support in Parliament and the approval of most Member States is now unthinkable. If the Commission was regularly disowned, we would have something to worry about but this is far from being the case. Parliament often amends its proposals and the Commission accepts them or rejects them, that's the rule of the game. If a project is rejected completely (like last year with the Directive on Take-overs), the Commission is obliged to amend its proposal. How many times have divergences between the different delegations after sometimes very long discussions involving the initial draft of the Commission going back to the Council? The Commission has, whenever possible, taken into account the sometimes divergent interests of Member States etc. And when, despite the various strands of opposition that exist within it, the Council must have the courage to apply qualified majority voting.
Relationship between Industrial and other policies. The situation is different in fields where the Commission benefits from autonomous decision-making, such as in competition. But even in these areas, national criticism must not be overdramatised. Chancellor Schröder has sometimes used, as a way of expressing his discontent, harsh words, which can be explained partly by this domestic problems or electoral concerns; but he has never asked for the powers of the Commission to be reduced and his representative at the Convention, Peter Glotz, has come out strongly in favour of the Commission preserving all its prerogatives. What are Germany's recriminations based upon? On the fear that the EU is developing an economic policy (fiscal, social and environmental etc.) that is harmful to industry and which doesn't sufficiently take into account the demands of manufacturers, the traditions of certain areas and the wellbeing of the people. The Commission's decisions in the field of competition can in effect, have a considerable influence in these fields - State Aids, free movement etc. But this occurs either in the framework of Treaty regulations or rules approved by the Council. The Treaties allow, in certain cases, the Council to intervene in areas where the Commission enjoys autonomous powers and can for example, unanimously decide whether State Aids are legitimate, even if the Commission has ruled them out. We've already had far more serious disagreements between the German government and the Commission, particularly in cases relating to the regional banks and building societies, which were sorted out by Marion Monti and German Ministers. In order to sort out the new German complaints, the Commission will be obliged to clarify (initially for itself) the relations between its industrial policy and its other policies, without forgetting that the Court of justice has demonstrated how an essential general interest can take precedence over legal provisions deriving from the very basis of the common market, such as free movement of goods and non-discrimination.
In conclusion, at the moment when the "Community Method" is in danger of being misunderstood and therefore compromised, it is important to reassert that its very essence resides in the rapport between the three institutions that represent the general interest (the Commission), Member States (Council) and the people (Parliament), under the control of the Court of Justice. The myth of an imagined Brussels bureaucracy must be destroyed because it simply just doesn't fit. (F.R.)