Europe's economic and foreign policy government

Herman van Rompuy is not known as a charismatic politician but, if you have time to read it, he gave a very thoughtful speech yesterday at the College of Europe in Bruges.

In it, he talks about the role of the European Council (rather than the Eurozone ministers or the Parliament) as Europe's nascent "economic government", and the difficulty of creating co-ordinated foreign policy among 27 state actors with different histories and outlooks.

On economics and the eurozone, van Rompuy said:

All the members of the European Council [are] willing to take more responsibility for ... economic issues. Such personal involvement is indispensable. I was glad to find a high level of ambition around the table.

The first result is that the European Council becomes something like the “gouvernement économique” of the Union, as some would call it. Or the place for "economic governance", as others prefer. The financial and economic crisis obliges us to take steps on this road.

Jobs and growth are of utmost importance for the daily lives of all our citizens, for our standard of living. The result of our economic efforts also determines our place in the world. Therefore I keep saying that, in the end, economic growth is about “the survival of our European way of life”.

There are some interesting democratic consequences here. Although van Rompuy doesn't point to the end of consensus government directly, it's hard to imagine that when economic issues are being discussed, the governments of the "smalls" will have as much influence as the "bigs". In fact, on economic governance, it's likely that Germany, France and (if she wants it) Britain will make almost all the running, with the smaller economies lining up behind one or another of them.

Although all the Council members are elected in themselves, this process risks irrelevancy for the democratic decisions of the smaller states. Economic government of the Union needs stronger democratic involvement, whether through the Parliament or (better) through the Parliament and stronger democratic engagement across the Union.

On foreign policy, van Rompuy said:

As you have learned here at the Collège, Europe started as a market, with a unique working method.

We can be proud of what it achieved. However, building a market is different from being a power. “L’Europe-puissance”, as the French like to call it. I should like to mention two, somewhat sensitive, consequences.

First: the decision method. In foreign policy you need quick decision and action, whereas our original working method was devised, and works well, as a rule making procedure. Progress in European foreign policy has relied largely on the impulse and the authority of the Heads of State or Government. That’s why some analysts have described the European Council, operating in foreign policy, as “a collective head of state”.

Second consequence: the role of Member States. Creating an internal market essentially means lifting barriers to trade. The governments and the institutions create a “level playing field” on which the economic actors – businesses, employers, consumers – operate. By contrast, in foreign affairs, and especially in security policy, the States do not leave the action to businesses or consumers.

They themselves are the actor and they take responsibility. They send out the police officers, the judges or the soldiers needed to provide peace and security or defend our interests. That makes a difference in terms of who is willing and able to do what.

Therefore we should not be surprised that the more the Union deals with foreign affairs, in the coming decade, the more certain differences in attitude between Member States will rise to the surface. History and geography play an important role in foreign policy. So this is not just about large Member States versus small Member States. It is also about having historic ties with certain regions in the world, or about being an island versus sharing a border with Russia. Such differences are real and will not go away like that.

As president of the European Council, I will consider everyone’s interests and sensitivities. Even if our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth. Recent developments, however, show that no single European country can on its own set the world political agenda or play a decisive role.

To help find a consensus among Member States, new institutions and new offices were created. In particular, those of permanent President of the European Council and of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. However, it does not suffice to create a new institution to solve a problem, certainly not immediately. This requires consultation between Member States and time.