Implementation of the Lisbon Treaty will lead to institutional problems which have not yet received sufficient clarification. Pointing out these difficulties is the aim of a study by three highly renowned and respected bodies of impeccable standing: Egmont (the former Belgian Royal Institute of International Relations), CEPS and EPC (see issue 9552 of our newsletter). The study has no intention of criticising the institutional reforms in the new treaty. On the contrary, the amendments introduced by the treaty in this field are seen as positive because they make progress in terms of democracy (strengthening the powers of the European Parliament, recognition of the competences of the national parliaments) and effective decision-making (extending majority voting, clarification of 'strengthened cooperation'). The study aims to highlight that application of these innovations will not necessarily be straightforward and their interpretation is not always crystal clear. All the more reason to consider matters ahead of time.
Comments from a protagonist. Our above-mentioned newsletter outlined the seven issues considered in the study, the authors' comments and a link to the full text. In an IFRI seminar, a less official setting than the presentation press conference, Philippe de Schoutheete, the study coordinator, added some personal considerations. He said that given the interest in the study from scientific and political circles, it had come at the right time. Substantial reforms that have been decided upon - 40 new areas where assent from the European Parliament will be compulsory; scrapping the notion of 'compulsory expenditure' escaping from parliamentary control; appointment of the president of the European Commission by the European Parliament; a new structure for the presidency of the Council; and reducing the number of European commissioners (meaning that not all member states' nationalities will be represented at any one time). This is meaty stuff, but too many aspects of the new changes remain unclear. Philippe de Schoutheete cited the following:
a) European Commission: an 'unreasonable' rule. From 2014 onwards the number of commissioners should be no more than two-thirds of the number of member states. A 'fair rotation' rule among the member states will be applied to appoint them. Result: a commissioner might not be appointed according to his or her qualities and European spirit but rather according to his or her nationality - when it's their country's turn, the job will be theirs. Mr de Schoutheete doubted that the mechanism would actually be applied in 2014. Fair rotation is 'not reasonable and if a rule is unreasonable, it is dropped.'
b) 'Strengthened cooperation': difficult to put into practice. Mr de Schoutheete backs the notion of strengthened cooperation because he feels that 'the future of Europe lies in differentiation'. The greater the number of member states, the more difficult it will be for them all to agree on any new initiative. Strengthened cooperation would allow a 'way out of deadlock' but would it necessarily prove any easier to set up? This is the aim of the new rules but the way they operate might actually put people off using them. All member states will be involved in such strengthened cooperation, even those which refuse to take part in the strengthened cooperation itself, and the entire European Parliament will express its views on the creation of strengthened cooperation and the decisions made. Strengthened cooperation among a majority of member states would be able to overcome these difficulties, but what about when only a minority of member states are involved? MEPs from non-participating member states will be in the majority and could refuse to play ball. This would result in the countries desiring strengthened cooperation tending to set up an inter-governmental structure outside EU rules.
c) Conclusion: Long live the new rules - shame they are so difficult to apply.
d) Powers of the national parliaments. The new measures aim to ensure greater involvement of national parliaments in the life of the EU, by giving them extra powers to monitor respect of subsidiarity. But Mr de Schoutheete doubts they will be effective. The new rules are positive from the political viewpoint because they will lead national parliaments to deal with European issues in more detail, issues they tend to neglect at the moment. But the legal effectiveness is doubtful.
e) Philippe de Schoutheete is not outraged at the 'grand manoeuvring' that is going on amongst the most powerful member states over the appointment of future presidents (of the European Council, Foreign Affairs Council, and European Commission) because a certain balance between nationalities and political guidelines is indispensable. The outcome of the European elections will, in any case, be decisive, thereby guaranteeing democracy. (F.R.)