An over-rapid rotating presidency

The times change, and the European Union follows the trend. However, Community Institutions’ performance, first and foremost the rules regulating its “lead” and its decision-making procedures, don’t change as they should – nor at the required pace. It’s a familiar disease. Fifteen-State EU could afford to take political and legislative decisions even with a veto-vote; today’s EU-27 and tomorrow’s EU-30 will no longer enjoy the same situation. The diagnosis is well-known. However, the therapies that have been identified aren’t put into practice…precisely because of cross-veto policy and due to Member States’ dated and baleful habit of not wanting to concede parts of their national sovereignty (a negotiating custom that is definitely démodé in III Millennium Europe!) Thus, the various proposals envisaging the reform of Institutions and of “the rules of the game” that the Constitutional Treaty – that French and Dutch referendums scuppered – and that the Reform Treaty – frozen by Ireland’s no-vote – aimed at introducing in the ever-complex Community building, have remained dead letter. The paradigmatic “victim” of this situation is the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union. Until halfway through the 1990s, the President-in-Office of the European Council was expected to act as host during heads of Government and State summits. However, the subsequent enlargements along with the fact that the Community’s nature as economic club evolved into a global business power with political aspirations (favoured by the fall of the Wall of Berlin and its repercussions), projected onto the President-in-Office the informal attire pertaining to the political leader of an entire continent that has been at peace with itself and with others for over the past fifty years. This role – just like all respectable managerial assignments – demands planning, diplomacy, decision-making capacities, resources, and mostly, time. The Convention for the Future of Europe chaired by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing justly decided to make up for the “missed constituents”, and promoted the Council of Europe to the level of an institution endowed with financial resources, also establishing the role of the President of the European Council with a renewable mandate of two and a half years. It was a concrete sign – addressed inside and outside of Brussels’ headquarters and of the national chancelleries – showing that the head-office of political Europe speaks with a single voice. The pain and the shame over European indolence and the division over Somalia, ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda were still alive! But nothing happened, not only because of the vetoes, but also because of government leaders’ inability “to pass the message through”. The present world financial crisis reopened the wound and gave new impetus to the issue. However, the unusual and welcome positive decisionism put into practice by the French Presidency to the benefit of the entire international community risks remaining but a memory once next semester’s rotating presidency will have been passed to the Czech Republic. Without a recognized and recognisable leadership, the EU’s role will never be recognized or recognisable. Without a determined guide sustained by determined political and economic action that only the appropriate means and timing can convey, Europe’s contribution will be ineffective; to the detriment of the entire planet. There are too many suppositional clauses preventing a concrete and immediate response to the (urgent and concrete) issues which societies are increasingly called to face. Stepping up institutional reform and granting the EU a politics with a capital P, increasing European awareness among citizens, are the uppermost priorities of those who still believe that the unity and the welfare of the Old Continent favour the unity and the wellbeing of the entire world. 2014 should be the year in which the figure of the President of the European Union will see the light.