Sometimes my column expects too much of its readers! In reporting virtually every day on the preparations for applying the new European Treaty, I made umpteen references to the suggestions, views and initiatives of the various stakeholders in the process, at the risk of sometimes creating some confusion for the reader. In order to remedy this, I have written an overview of the main positions and suggestions aiming to give concrete expression to the main institutional innovations that the Lisbon Treaty implies, with a few updates.
1. Postponing the appointments? In theory, the legislation requires a staggering of the four main appointments - the start of 2009 for the standing president of the European Council and the high representative for 'foreign relations'; and the second half of the year (after the European elections) for the president of the European Commission and the president of the European Parliament. In this connection, how can the primordial requirement of striking political and geographical balance be struck? In practice, once the first two appointments have been made, the third person will have to be named, with the complication that the high representative will be appointed in two stages: firstly by heads of state when it comes to the president of the 'Foreign Affairs Council' part of the job, and then by the EP when it comes to the vice-president of the Commission part of the job. It is therefore understandable that the idea is being formed at the EP of bringing together the three appointments that the national parliaments will have their say on. How? By delaying the new treaty coming into force for a few months. Alain Lamassoure spoke openly on this (see my column in newsletter No. 9661), followed by Jo Leinen (who in fact mooted the idea last February of making the appointments in 'packages', see issue 9600), with more or less explicit support from other people, namely Graham Watson and Monica Frassoni.
The parliamentary rapporteur Jean-Luc Dehaene has not expressed his views openly on this point. In statements to our Agency at the end of February (see issue 9612), he admitted that there was a problem because it would be easier to reach the necessary political and geographical balance, and also balance between small and large nations, if all three choices were made at the same time, after the European elections. But this is not the case and it will be necessary to see how to solve this problem, he added. He has clearly not been won over by the Lamassoure idea.
2. Frontrunners for chairing the European Council. According to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, candidates for this position should not be selected in secret but should themselves come forward and have the option of speaking publicly. Lamassoure backs this idea, but Dehaene is not planning on including it in his report. Does he feel it is unrealistic? VGE is sticking to his guns, which seems to suggest that he may be planning to come forward as a candidate himself, although circles close to the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, initially came up with Tony Blair and seem at present to be leaning in favour of Juncker or Barroso. France's position has special weight because it is under the French Presidency of the EU that the decision will have to be taken.
In statements to our newsletter at the end of February, when asked about Tony Blair's candidacy, Dehaene said that the president of the European Council would have to come from a country which was involved in all areas of the EU (clearly not the case for the United Kingdom). He said this was vital if the job is to be given any importance. This is not how it is seen in the circles surrounding Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace in Paris.
3. The European commissioners. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the rule that all member states should be represented on the European Commission (that each country should have a commissioner) will be phased out in 2014, at which point there should be two-thirds as many European commissioners as there are member states. There would be a 'fair' rotation of nationalities and all member states would be on the same footing. The increase in the number of member states through 'fragmentation' (Czechoslovakia splitting into two, the creation of Kosovo and Montenegro as two new EU member states in the future, and possibly the island of Cyprus splitting in two in the near future, etc) makes this idea absurd and impossible in practice: all a country would have to do to have a greater say in Brussels would be to divide into two. This is not an urgent issue but leading figureheads believe that it should be discussed. Jacques Delors suggested considering a geographical criterion - one commissioner for every big nation and for every group of small nations (Benelux, the Baltic states, etc which would decide for themselves how to rotate the country with the commissioner). If I remember rightly, he described this as “regional constituencies”.
The authorities avoid talking about the issue because it is highly controversial and can be left to a later date, but thought has to be given to it. Philippe de Schoutheete was the first, as far as I am aware, to explicitly slam the absurdity of the formula set out in the new treaty and to say that it should quite simply not be applied (this could be achieved when appropriate through a European Council decision). Piero Calamia reached the same conclusion, saying it made sense for big member states to always have a commissioner of their nationality, and for small member states to sometimes have a commissioner, on a rotating basis (see the day-before-yesterday's newsletter). Both believe that this change would be positive for the small countries because weakening the Commission would mean increasing the importance of intergovernmental cooperation, which is only really controlled by the big countries. It is a proper functioning of the Community Method that protects the small nations.
4. The role of prime ministers. Under the current system, prime ministers chair the European Council on a rotating basis. With the new stable presidency, prime ministers would disappear from the European stage. Lamassoure suggested making prime ministers the chairs of the General Affairs Council. This would have a double impact - giving them a special role and rebuilding the meaning and importance of the General Affairs Council, which is rather neglected at present and doomed for insignificance, although in Jacques Delors' view, it should become the hub of EU activity alongside the European Commission and the European Parliament. Only a 'General' Council, meeting regularly, can coordinate the activities of the 'specialised' councils and ensure coherence in EU action. It would also relieve the Summit of the raft of documents submitted to it and rubber-stamped without being read. This would mean that the European Council (the summit) could focus on real issues and make its meetings effective and significant.
In order to be effective, this transformation presupposes a genuine revolution in the habits of the Council and national governments. The prime minister of the country holding the six-month presidency of the EU could plan to come to Brussels once a month (or almost) to give impetus to the work of the various Council formations and ensure their work is coherent, as long as all member states are duly represented each time. This would not be easy - one would have to return to the old idea that in every member state government there should be a top-ranking politician with responsibility for European affairs, implicitly recognising that from now on, it is under the Community framework that most decisions are taken.
6. Extra input. In order to flesh out this overview, I have added three additional, recent or less well-known contributions.
a) Jacques Delors, on summit meetings with other countries, particularly the United States and Russia: “If the standing president of the European Council, the acting president of the External Relations Council, the high representative and the president of the European Commission all turn up together, that will make a right expedition” (off-the-record comment to the editor of this column).
b) Jean-Luc Dehaene, on the role of the standing president of the European Council: “The text of the new treaty is clear. The European Council is an institution separate from the other institutions. Its president, elected by a qualified majority, 'shall chair and facilitate the work of the European Council' and no more. It is not a French-style European president with many powers. The other institutions are not involved in appointing him or her. This remains a protocol function in the field of international politics.” On the idea of merging the presidencies of the European Council and the European Commission: “This is a model I argue for. It is not impossible under the Lisbon Treaty” (interview with a student from the European Department of Strasbourg University, headed by Prof. Xavier Delcourt).
c) José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, on institutional balance: “The standing presidency of the European Council is a job necessary for Europe's coherence and visibility in the world. The standing president should be someone who loves Europe, who has the European spirit, shares its values and understands the Community Method. The president of the Commission will be the only one to hold legitimacy from both the Council, which appointed him or her, and the European Parliament, which elected him or her” (interview with La Croix newspaper on 25 May 2008).
The decisive phase is getting under way. People interested in the detail of the various aspects covered in today's column should, of course, read my previous comments on specific issues. My column in newsletters 9575, 9618 and 9660, for example, on the role of the standing presidency of the European Council, 9576 on perplexities surrounding the composition of the European Commission, 9617 for an overview, etc. Not forgetting, of course, information published in the other pages of this newsletter, like the memorandum from the Slovenian Presidency of the EU summarising decisions to be made (issue 9586) and its first progress reports (see issue 9642).
With the vote on the Dehaene Report by the relevant committee at the European Parliament and the French Presidency of the Council of the EU from July 2008 until December 2008, we are entering the decisive phase of preparing for the institutional reforms assuming, that is, that the treaty is ratified by all the member states. But that is another subject that deserves special consideration of its own. (F.R.)