Who guides the EU?

On July 1st, as customary every six months, a new Member State will be installed at the EU presidency. Now it’s the turn of Belgium. After the parliament elections past June 13, which caused a radical change in the Country’s political relations, the Belgian political leadership is called to find a new balance and form a new government. In this situation Belgium’s guidance cannot be expected. Nor would it be in a normal situation, since small Member States, aware of their minor importance, are usually reluctant to act as guides.Since the enforcement of the Lisbon Treaty on December 1st 2009, the presidency’s role has changed. Its previous task of organizing and guiding Heads of Government and State cooperation was transferred to European Council presidents. The function of the President is limited to the role of the host, with the task of preparing and guiding the Councils of the various ministers who in turn deal with community legislation projects. It’s a sector where emphases can be made. But in this case the European Commission is tasked with providing guidance. The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, described his mandate with humble words. He considers himself a moderator and a mediator of the various interests, needs and ideas of the 27 Heads of Government. His ambition is to reach compromise solutions and seek consensus in order to create the preliminary conditions for decisions implying joint action. Before his appointment at the European seat, Belgian president Van Rompuy was himself the head of government of a complex Member State, whose balance of opposed and conflicting interests is part of State reason. The same can be said about the European Union, although in this case the picture is much more complex, as only few Member States whose geographic and demographic dimension, history, whose role in the integration process, along with the political and economic role, impose their leadership or are appointed to guide the EU. This leads to rivalries when there are differing opinions between the States and/or their leaders. There have been several examples during the past months of crisis. As often happened in sixty years of the history of the Union of Europe the protagonists are France and Germany, which represent, so as to say, the two elements which substantially determined the political and cultural evolution of the continent, namely, the Latin and Germanic contribution, with different methods and experiences on State organization and political action. Also from a geographic viewpoint, the two Countries are the symbols of Europe’s different dispositions. France look towards the South and the West, while Germany extends its glance to the North and to the East. But Europe thrives on the symbiosis of both Countries’ principles. This implies that France and Germany follow the same direction, when we want Europe to progress. Precisely because of the differences characterizing these Countries’ perspectives, priorities and interests, their respective governments must reach an agreement and overcome the rivalry occasionally manifested in the yearning to prevail as the leader. Indeed, this role can be also exerted to the service of the community, leaving egoistic or national interests aside. This is also the objective of the Constitution of the European Union, which dooms outsiders and unilateral solutions to failure. The guide of the EU in all questions lacking an institutionalized procedure in compliance with Community method, especially in the areas of foreign affairs and security, is entrusted to the European Council, which brings together 27 Heads of Government. This body’s opinion formation and decision requires not only that its President exert moderation in bringing together the different interests. It also demands that initiatives be determined, convincing and aimed at the development of a common position. Usually, when such initiatives are jointly endorsed by Germany and France, success is around the corner.