Timetable whims cannot be counted on. We cannot get round the need for a permanent presidency of the European Council. The following musings in no way aim to cast doubt on such a presidency but are simply to point out that it involves many problems that will never be resolved if we never speak about them. Innovation introduced by the Lisbon Treaty is essential and even urgent for clear reasons which have, moreover, already been mentioned in this column before. Do we need to remind you of them?
Under the half-year presidency system, it was simply a quirk in the timetable that made possible the two most spectacular results obtained by the now outgoing presidency. The first concerns the conflict in Georgia. Neither the previous presidency (Slovenia) nor that which is about to begin (Czech Republic) would have had the possibility of being heard by Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev immediately, of being received in Moscow and of obtaining an immediate ceasefire. The conflict would have gone on longer and been extended at the risk of unforeseeable consequences (given the position taken by the United States). The same thing was true when it came to the financial crisis. Nicolas Sarkozy was able to get President Bush to call an urgent G20 meeting in Washington, thus triggering an emergency global response, with the participation of international monetary organisations. In both these cases, the president of the European Council spoke on behalf of the EU and demanded that the president of the Commission and other representatives of the Community institutions be at his side. Just a few weeks earlier, or later, the EU would not have been able to play its rightful role. The Slovenian Presidency has recognised this, wondering what it would have been able to do if the conflict in Georgia had broken out in June rather than in August.
This absurd situation must end. We must put an end to this absurd situation whereby the face of Europe at the very highest level changes every six months, and the president of the United States sometimes calls on his advisers to tell him who his discussion partner is to be. Mr Sarkozy told the European Parliament just recently: “What is lacking in Europe is not the institutions but faces”.
Reflection on possible drawbacks. So, let's welcome a permanent presidency - but without any illusions. It will allow an answer to be found to Henry Kissinger's old but still used sardonic question: “Who do I phone for Europe?” But even if this new post existed, it would not resolve the essential problem as its effectiveness is subject to other factors. The Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the permanent president of the European Council should hold no other post. He will no longer be, as he is now, the president of his country of origin. It is a good intention to point out that it would be a “full time job” but there are serious drawbacks. Within the summit, would not a president - who does not represent his/her country and who is not elected by universal suffrage - risk being considered as no more than someone who “organises meetings”, a “chairman” rather than a president? It would seem, moreover, that that is what the European Parliament is leaning towards, but how much influence would a chairman have in the world, one who is just there for organising summits? Would Nicolas Sarkozy have been listened to in the same way if he had not also been the president of the French Republic? One possible answer would be that the permanent president should be elected by the people of Europe as a whole by universal suffrage - or it could be possible to designate one of the members of the European Council to represent it in special missions that go beyond the simple task of representation … One might also wonder which of the current national presidents would be willing to leave his post to take on the new one.
Reflection is needed and something must be invented so that the sought-after result is achieved.
Avoiding the “imperial temptation”. The stable president would also have to avoid giving the impression, particularly to small countries, that the EU is availing itself of a sort of democratic emperor. Some eastern European countries are particularly sensitive about this. Their premise is well known - they have not freed themselves from the yoke of Moscow to come under that of Brussels. Nicolas Sarkozy - after an initial period when his keenness made him launch a number of initiatives without first holding a joint discussion (the Euro-Mediterranean Union!) and when his tone seemed somewhat imperialistic - has made considerable effort to show his respect not only for the opinions and interests of all member states but also for the institutions and Community procedures. It is, however, obvious that the answer to risks and perplexity does not lie in the evolution of one person, whoever that may be, but in the strengthening of common institutions and European mechanisms (Parliament's powers, EP/Council co-decision, majority vote governed by autonomous Commission “dual majority”, etc), as set out in the Lisbon Treaty. Thus we come back to the point of departure - first of all the Lisbon Treaty and then the rest will follow.
(F.R./transl.jl)