Under this heading of 28 June on the institutional results of the Seville Summit, I did not devote much time to measures relating to how the European Council itself works. I even neglected one important aspect. It is not true to say that no progress was made on the possibility for the European Council to deliberate by qualified majority in certain cases. Annex I of the Seville "conclusions" does not speak of majority decisions, as the European Council does not adopt formal Community texts. Nonetheless, provisions relating to the fixing of the agenda of the Summits provides for this agenda to contain points submitted to discussion with a view to finalising a decision. And paragraph 9 states: "in the context of enlargement and in exceptional cases, where an item is placed on the agenda of the European Council for a decision" this may result in "political conclusions drawn from positions". These political conclusions of positions taken by the Fifteen is then brought to the attention of the Council so that it may "consider the implications for subsequent proceedings, in accordance with the applicable Treaty provisions". To put it clearly, this means that the Council of Ministers will vote in conformity with what was noted within the Summit, by majority if the treaty provides this procedure for the subject under discussion. The positions of the heads of government therefore define how each delegation will take a stance in the formal deliberations within the Council. It is clear: this corresponds to a majority decision taken by the Summit, while respecting the legal competence of the Council. It remains to be seen how the notion of "exceptional cases" is interpreted. The term "in the context of enlargement" seems to indicate that this procedure will only be applicable in the future enlarged Union (and therefore not at the next revision of CAP.
I am not the only one not to have immediately grasped the extent of paragraph 9 (I have less regret when noting that it even slipped past an observer as acute as Jean-Louis Bourlanges). I wish to point this out so that MEPs who consider it appropriate may take it into account in Tuesday's debate in Strasbourg on the results of the Summit. (F.R.)