Herman's little accommodations

(BRUSSELS2) A novelty but not a fundamental leap. A leap a little missed by the lack of voluntarism and transparency of the Chairman of the Board... Explanation

The procedure for appointing Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, by a vote of the Heads of State and Government on Friday (June 27), is a novelty. But this is not a fundamental leap. This is one more step towards democratization. But a step that the "Chefs" have taken, without joy of heart, as if backwards.

A British stone to European construction

Paradoxically. This qualitative leap is due... to a eurosceptic, David Cameron. It will probably be necessary one day to dedicate a statue or the name of a room to the British in the European Council for his ineffable contribution to European construction 😉 A vote in the confined enclosure of a European Council is, indeed, exceptional. Until the last moment, its president, the former Belgian Prime Minister, Herman Van Rompuy, was not very favorable to it, preferring to keep these discussions behind closed doors. Moreover, he took great care to surround this vote only with formal minimalism.

No publication of votes

There was therefore no public broadcasting of the vote or publication of the votes as usual for a decision of the Board. The publication of the votes does not mean, in fact, just the announcement of the result and the number of voters. But a precise statement of the votes "For, Against, Abstentions", country by country, on an official list, published on the internet. We manage to do this for all decisions, as shown by the last vote in the Council on " the application of a reduced rate of excise duty, in the Autonomous Region of Madeira, to rum and liqueurs produced and consumed and, in the Autonomous Region of the Azores” (see here). Why wouldn't we be able to do it at the level of heads of state?

Interpretation of the letter, not the spirit of treaties

Admittedly, the Treaty is silent on the methods of voting in the European Council. But the text does provide (in article 16) that " The Council sits in public when deliberating and voting on a draft legislative act ". Admittedly, the Council is not the European Council. And a "legislative" act is not a "political" act, some jurists might say who care about respecting the treaty to the letter. The point is not there. There is indeed a "decision" as mentioned in the conclusions of the Council. A decision submitted to the vote of the European Parliament. We are therefore indeed in a legislative process. And there is no reason to make an exception if not to the letter of the treaty at least to its spirit. We could therefore have had a public session - therefore broadcast on the screens, with a public vote - and not this session on the sly. The fact that the result is known, more or less publicly, does not mean that the session is public. This is not really a service rendered to European democracy.

A behavior of a little notary

This behavior of "little notary" - dear to Herman Van Rompuy - is moreover one could not more visible during all the procedure. Heads of State and Government have always interpreted minima the provisions of the Treaty in order to retain only the strictest elements. Thus the treaty (in a declaration n°11) planned to determine in “ useful time » the method of consultation between the European Parliament and the European Council.

• (...) representatives of the European Parliament and of the European Council will proceed, beforehand to the decision of the European Council, to the necessary consultations within the framework deemed most appropriate. These consultations will relate to the profile of the candidates for the office of President of the Commission, taking into account the elections to the European Parliament (...). The terms of these consultations may be specified, in proper time, by common agreement between the European Parliament and the European Council.

But the President of the Council preferred to consider that this "useful time" would be the last moment. Instead of an interinstitutional agreement, negotiated several months earlier, as requested by the parliamentarians, the President of the Council has improvised a procedure without constraint. This undoubtedly had a "tactical" advantage, giving the Heads of State the impression of keeping control. A short-lived victory...

The balance of power European Parliament / European Council

By not foreseeing the change of rules in advance, the Heads of State and Government, as a whole, took shelter, in fact, behind a pretense. The one that things hadn't changed since the Treaty of Maastricht. It is a mistake.

First through the threat of a vote of no confidence (Santer Commission), then through the hearings of Commissioners (Barroso I and II Commission), and now through the imposition of the presidential candidate, the political parties and the European Parliament have, in fact, methodically gained ground, with each new designation of the Commission, over the European Council and the nation states.

A process to improve

Several European leaders, without affirming it openly, have also considered that the functioning of the European Council should certainly be reviewed next time. François Hollande himself recognized it. " It is undoubtedly necessary to improve the nomination procedure, to make the parties understand that the choice of their candidate has consequences ". The one who comes first is the candidate designated to head the Commission. " This implies that there is a discussion (prior) between Heads of State and Government ". This even if " most are also party leaders”.

A remark apparently shared by several leaders around the table. Because the European Council in this European choice, which it took too long to endorse and which it poorly prepared, was faced with a fait accompli...

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)