Exposing the myths of decision-making

Date: 05/10/1995

It is time to revise the commonly-held belief that the EU's biggest member states always get their way. They may capture the headlines but, as a European Voice investigation this week reveals, their arguments do not always win the day when Union legislation is approved.

Germany is undoubtedly the most powerful player in the Union, its influence bolstered by its role as the EU's biggest paymaster. But the country which has long provided the driving force behind successive moves towards closer integration does not always find it as easy as might be assumed to impose its will on other member states when it comes to formulating day-to-day legislation.

This may come as a surprise to people outside the privileged inner circle of EU decision-makers unfamiliar with how they really work. But the Union's smaller member states have long realised that the ability to influence legislation does not depend so much on a country's size or economic weight, but on its ability to move fast, build alliances and show the necessary degree of flexibility as negotiations on hard-fought issues enter a decisive phase.

Governments sometimes have a vested interest in failing to explain to the public just how decisions are really taken at meetings with their counterparts in Brussels. For some, it avoids the domestic embarrassment which may follow a climbdown behind closed doors in the Council of Ministers. For others, it can be a useful ploy to persuade voters back home to accept unpalatable decisions by blaming their EU partners.

But in the long run such manoeuverings are short-sighted. They give a false impression of the realities of Union decision-making and help to foster public suspicion of the process by which legislation affecting some aspect of their daily lives is decided.

This week's agreement by foreign ministers to let a little more light into the decision-making process, showing how governments and the Commission intend to interpret the legislation they have agreed, is welcome. But those who argue in favour of going further should be listened to.

As the Union approaches its review of the Maastricht Treaty with a ritual emphasis on the need to explain more clearly the benefits of what it does and why to its 370 million citizens, further moves to open up the secretive world of EU decision-making to the public gaze could play a key role in achieving that goal.