There is nothing new about the confusion regarding the move to a stable Presidency of the Summits of the EU, but this column had not planned to raise the subject just now, preferring instead to observe a certain “order of priority”. The main priority is the adoption of the “Modified Treaty” and the launch of its ratification process. The hypothesis of changing any significant aspect of it at the last minute is not a serious danger; it would mean reopening the entire negotiation. From now on, we can consider the multi-annual duration of the Presidency of the European Council as a done deal. Is this an insidious reform, bringing about a great many risks for the functioning of the EU? It's true; this could have been discussed at the same time as the details were laid down. This is my opinion.
A concerned President of the Commission. José Manuel Barroso preferred to raise this dossier immediately, a few days before the political approval of the new Treaty. In an interview, he voiced his fears that the Member States may use the stable Presidency of the European Council to circumnavigate the European institutions. The risk is that the Summits will be prepared by the stable President, because “a new circuit, in parallel to the Commission and the Parliament, could come into being”. Whichever President is appointed would have the temptation of creating a kind of parallel administration to prepare for the deliberations of the Summit. The tone of the President of the Commission was somewhat concerned: “there is a very real danger of seeing the governments resolving their problems between themselves, without taking account of the Community institutions” (see our bulletin 9518). I do not know the reasons which led the Commission President to voice his concerns at this moment in time; they are, without a doubt, entirely valid. In any case, he did it; so let's talk about it.
The confusion regarding this institutional innovation has been around for a long time among the top-level Who's Who of European integration. But what can be done, given that the governments have agreed and European Parliament has given its blessing? This means that the six-monthly rotation for the Summits will disappear. There are, of course, disadvantages to this rotation, for external relations in particular. At this moment in time, in our regular Summits with the United States, the American President meets a different European President each time (and sometimes even has to ask his colleagues what his or her name is). The same goes for Vladimir Putin, whose European opposite number one day may be a European President who is a vociferous critic of Russian democratic shortcomings, and the next, Mr Berlusconi, with his enthusiastic suggestions that Russia may like to join the European Union, and pledging his support should they attempt to do so. At the same time, however, we are aware of the significance attached by the most recent Member States to the rotational exercise of a Presidency, which can make a powerful contribution to getting across to their general public the importance of European integration, and to making their country better understood. This objection, and those regarding the “institutional risk” to which I referred, have been swept aside. The European Parliament, which is highly attentive to even very minor details concerning its competencies, seems not to be overly concerned at the possible side-slipping towards inter-governmental formulae. The reform is a done deal.
Seeking a balance. The analyses point to the existence of just one alternative: either the stable President (up to five years) of the European Council has a prestige role, with no real powers, or he or she will have powers (essentially, this will be at the expense of the Commission), in which case a dedicated staff may be required to help with preparations for the Summits. A few days ago, Jacques Delors spoke to me of his concerns and misgivings. And I do not believe that it can be by accident that Etienne Davignon very recently vigorously reaffirmed the irreplaceable role of the Commission, which is the only institution capable (by its composition, its services and its traditions) of defining the common European interest, which is impossible for a single Member State to do, whichever one it is (see this column in bulletin 9507). For his part, Jean-Claude Juncker generally informed anyone who might see him as a candidate for this new post that he wasn't the least bit interested. It is obvious that he cannot see himself creating a parallel administration to the existing institutions; if the political circumstances and the goodwill of his peers led him to take up this responsibility tomorrow, this would mean that a satisfactory solution would have been found to the problem of the balance of the responsibilities of competences between the Commission and the stable Presidency of the Summit. This will not be easy; and this is what is at stake with the clarification exercise to be commenced.
I felt that this exercise could have taken place after the new Treaty had been approved. The President of the Commission chose instead to voice his fears now. The debate is open and the players are starting to take position. Tomorrow, I will report back on that of the Belgian Foreign Affairs Minister. (F.R.)