The reality we have learned. This commentary is two weeks' late, because the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council ended on 30 June and we're halfway through July already. The reason is simple: I wanted to wait for the referendum of the Grand Duchy on the European Constitution before commenting on the first half of the year, as I felt that this was indirectly linked to the six months of its Presidency. Once Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker announced that he would have stepped down if the “noes” had had it, the positive result takes on the significance of a vote for him at national level (which also has a European significance: see below).
It is not my intention to draw up a detailed balance sheet of the Luxembourg Presidency, because this has already been done, by Mr Juncker himself, for one, before the European Parliament. His most referred-to successes include the updating of the Lisbon Strategy (including social cohesion among the priority objectives), the revision of the Stability Pact (placing greater emphasis on the economic aspects but not at the expense of budgetary rigour, a result which is a small miracle on the part of the Presidency), the new State aid objectives for the development of poor countries and progress made in relations with the United States and Russia. I will happily add the decision on the rural development Fund to this, even though it was technically adopted in early July under the UK Presidency, but this was done on the basis of a compromise of the Luxembourg Presidency; in the eyes of anyone who understands what agriculture means to Europe, this is a fundamentally important agreement. On the other hand, the inability to reach agreement on the financial perspectives 2007-2013 weighed heavily on the assessments of a number of commentators. Jean-Claude Juncker made a number of concessions, even on what are his personal convictions, accepting a certain amount of criticism in his efforts to be efficient. In the final phase of these negotiations, the differences of opinion over the numbers had been practically smoothed out (see this column in our bulletin 8972), but certain Member States wanted to take the opportunity to start a revision of the very structure of the Union's expenditure, whatever the cost. This failure had a profound effect on Mr Juncker, which he didn't hide (“I was sad and I showed it… we politicians are human beings too, with our disappointments and despair”), but he was working to a programme and this was unavoidable, given how things panned out at the Summit.
A unique situation. Instead of a summary, here are a few initial comments suggested by the Luxembourg six months. It is clear that no other Prime Minister has the luxury of being able to devote as much time and attention to European as Mr Juncker did. It is not going too far to say that the Presidency of the European Council was a “full-time job” for him. Should we conclude from this that appointing an exclusive President, with no national position, would be the best thing for the European Council? This is not the view of all observers. Some feel that a “national legitimacy” is indispensable in order to be respected by his or her fellow heads of government, and that without the permanent approval of his or her own people, the permanent President of the European Council would end up being nothing more than a “chairman”. This is also true of the Council of ministers: Mr Asselborn, and Mr Schmit even more so, channelled their full working capacity into Europe, and this concentration allowed them not only to follow, very closely and with no interruptions, European ministerial sessions and to prepare for them, but also to hold uninterrupted dialogue with the European Parliament (plenary sessions and committees) and other Community organisations. It should also be borne in mind that Mr Juncker was chairing the Ecofin Council and the Eurogroup at the same time, commitments no other Prime Minister would be able to take on.
However, time isn't everything; the key words are experience and knowledge. Where else would you find a Prime Minister with as much European experience as Jean-Claude Juncker, and his specific experience of European Councils? His knowledge of the trickiest dossiers, such as the British budgetary rebate and the own resources? His experience of representing Europe in talks at the highest world level? To a certain extent, his government team shared these characteristics. It is worth noting that the President of the Agriculture Council, Fernand Boden, chaired the same Council when it adopted the historic document on the multifunctionality of agriculture in 1997 (see this column in bulletin 8983), and that Nicolas Schmit was a Permanent Representative for a long time, before he was made a minister. Should we conclude from this that the formula of Presidents occupying their posts for longer is a valid one… as long as they are from Luxembourg? Obviously this is not a serious suggestion, but it does give rise to a few other thoughts. (F.R.)