The State of the European Union. The European states facing the reforms of the Union

THE STATES ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE

legitimacy, to the difficulty in devising an effec-

tive mechanism of parliamentary censure.

Anyway, this is an institutional matter of the

first order and the European Council should not

address it until after an appropriate debate in

the Parliament, not forgetting that such an in-

stitutional modification would probably require

a reform of the treaties.

The other two issues mentioned, namely,

possible transnational lists and the way in which

the EU appoints senior officials, including the

“lead candidates” (

Spitzenkandidaten

), were

included on the agenda of the informal

European Council meeting of 23 February 2018,

but addressing the former has been postponed

sine die

As for the “lead candidates,” the European

Council has been unenthusiastic about the pro-

posal of the European Parliament (backed by

the President of the Commission) of repeating

in 2019 the procedure applied following the

European elections of 2014 (election as

President of the Commission of the candidate

to receive most votes in the Parliament). Indeed,

the European Council has said that it cannot

guarantee in advance that it will propose one of

the lead candidates for President of the

Commission and recalled that the Treaty is very

clear on the autonomous power of the European

Council to designate the candidate, taking into

consideration the European elections and hav-

ing maintained the appropriate consultations.

Finally, regarding Juncker’s proposal of merg-

ing the two presidencies, the European Council

For an examination of the possible reasons for this

surprising proposal from Juncker and on the negative

effects of the merger of the two presidencies, see:

Dauvergne, Alain,

Un chapeau pour deux têtes: une

simplification compliquée

. Available at:

http://institutdelors. eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/unchapeaupourdeuxttes- dauvergne-tribune-sept17.pdf

refused to deal with the matter. Donald Tusk

himself made it clear: “Jean-Claude also pre-

sented the idea of a merger of our two posts,

but there was no appetite to take this forward.

Above all, because it would substantially reduce

the role of Member States in the EU”.

Conclusion

In 2017, while the economic, social and migra-

tion crisis, the crisis of political representation,

nationalisms and Brexit may have partly legiti-

mised the pragmatic attitude of the states,

which turned their attention to specific issues of

a more or less urgent nature, both the states

individually and the European Council devoted

a debate of limited value to the underlying

problem – the Union’s model of political func-

tioning – and squandered the deliberative po-

tential of the Commission’s

White paper

on the

Future of Europe.

The model of a

multi-speed Europe

received

greatest support from the states, over the rest

of the models put to debate.

While that model is not ideal for the more

Europeanists and it means a slowdown in the

process of European integration, it could render

arguments aimed at halting the advance to-

wards union or at triggering exit from the

Union, following the British example, with little

justification.

The “future of Europe” that will be shaped

by the decisions that the states have to take as

of 2018 on each of the sectorial issues or poli-

cies considered priority by the States is in all

Available at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/ press-releases/2018/02/23/remarks-by-president-donald- tusk-following-the-informal-meeting-of-the-27-heads-of- state-or-government-on-23-february-2018/