State of the Union – There They Go Again

State of the Union – There They Go Again

Three months into the work of the Future of Europe Convention the debate is heating up. Tensions are starting to show over the political style and approach of its chairman, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, and a myriad of overlapping political blocks have formed. But the sharpest debate so far has been precipitated by interventions from the outside. The U.K., supported by France, has pushed forward the idea of a new President of the European Union, while the European Commission has followed up rapidly with alternative proposals for putting economic, foreign policy and home affairs powers within its remit.

This looks like an only too predictable battle between the inter-governmentalists, fighting to strengthen the powers of the member states, and the federalists or integrationists, aiming to build the commission into a pan-European government. In previous battles, the compromise solution usually involved mixing both approaches, resulting in the rather unwieldy and inelegant European Union of today. But the likelihood that the convention may design a long-lasting solution, incorporated in an EU constitution, has produced fiercely differing views of what the solution ought to be. The convention is meant to encourage pan-European debate, so a bit of heat seems a good thing to start with. The problem is that such traditional European power battles could overshadow the real task of the convention: to make an enlarged EU more effective and democratically legitimate, giving the block a stronger voice in the world.

The U.K. argues that their proposals for an EU president are a direct answer to the tasks the convention faces. The new EU president, they suggest, should be a former European head of government or state, appointed for five years by the European Council (made up of all the current heads of state). No more changing EU presidencies every six months, a ritual confusing to the public as well as to the rest of the world. He (for it is unlikely to be a she) would be a visible figurehead able to talk with the U.S. and others, and more legitimate than the head of the European Commission.

France and Spain like this idea, and Italy is expected to endorse it too. The presidency idea is likely to be on the agenda of the European Summit in Seville next month — threatening to upstage the convention, though don’t expect agreement at this stage. An EU president has yet to be formally discussed within the convention, but Mr. Giscard d’Estaing and his Italian vice-chairman, Guiliano Amato, are said to support the idea, while the Belgian vice-chairman, Jean-Luc Dehaene, is not enthusiastic. This reflects classic small country/large country divisions. The “bigs,” with the crucial exception so far of Germany, are in favor, while the smaller countries, together with the European Parliament and the commission, see this as a grab for power by the bigs, with the aim of taking control of the enlarged EU. One name touted so far for the potential new job is Tony Blair, whose domestic opponents suggest he is trying to line up an international post for himself in 2005, in time to turn over the reins in the UK to Gordon Brown. Jose Maria Aznar is another name put forward.

The idea is not only divisive. It’s highly problematic. The EU already has a former head of government appointed for five years by the European Council — Romano Prodi, the commission president. But his democratic legitimacy is questionable. Some propose a genuine election of the commission president in the future, whether by the European Parliament or the European public at large. In any case, the creation of two more or less identical presidency positions within the EU, one in the council and one in the commission, looks like a recipe for confusion. Nor is it clear how the new EU president would work with the institutionally separate commission, where many of the key executive powers lie. And whether he could provide a strong interlocutor for the American president would depend, as now, on whether current European heads of government are willing to hand their foreign policy roles to one former premier. Certainly, in his current position Tony Blair is willing to do no such thing.

Altogether, such an EU president may end up as weak not strong, creating, not solving, problems. Despite the support of Mr. Giscard d’Estaing, so far most of the convention’s members seem to have a fairly strong integrationist leaning. In the opening debates, they have shown support for strengthening the EU’s powers in coordination of economic policy, foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs. Little support has been seen for repatriating powers back to the member states. Nor is there much enthusiasm for a precise list of powers, delimiting exactly where the EU can and cannot act. This is seen as too static, potentially limiting future integration.

Most of the 28 countries involved in the convention are also small countries. As such, the smalls, including the candidate countries of eastern Europe, tend to see the commission as defending their interests against the large countries, and impeding the creation of a directoire by the bigs. They may be reluctant to support proposals that may strengthen the intergovernmental, UN-style council at the expense of the commission.

But the commission itself needs radical reform — to tackle its undemocratic, unaccountable and inefficient structures. A stronger commission needs to be built around a much smaller number of democratically accountable commissioners, probably only ten or 12, concerned only with European and not national interests. But the convention has yet to show its cards on this.

The big danger is that the current stand-off over a new EU president will result in a damaging compromise between bigs and smalls. The smaller countries are highly reluctant to give up the individual commissioner each currently has. If the bigs get their EU president, in return for the smalls all keeping an individual commissioner, this could be the worst of all possible worlds: a weak EU president trying to work with — or fight against — a weak and bloated commission. All with both the council and commission prey to national interests, and no progress on democracy or efficiency, let alone on the EU’s voice in the world.

The question for the Future of Europe Convention is whether it, too, will fall into the trap of these traditional power battles. Or whether it will prove its value by rising above them and looking at Europe’s interests as a whole.

By Kirsty Hughes, CEPS Senior Research Fellow.

For more CEPS analyses see the

CEPS website.