Why two heads of Europe won’t be better

Date: 30/01/03

A single European president would provide far more efficient leadership than the dual presidency currently being proposed, argues Giovanni Grev

THE French and German governments have injected a radical new momentum into the Convention on the future of Europe with their proposal for two presidents for the EU.

Their insistence that future presidents of the Commission should have their own democratic mandate - by being elected through the European Parliament - is very positive. Unfortunately by proposing a second, separate president - of the European Council - Paris and Berlin risk creating confusion and internal political conflict between the two halves of this duumvirate or double presidency.

Think of what it might mean in practice. It is 9am on 15 May, 2005. The president of the United States has called for an urgent summit with the European Union, to discuss the worsening global economic situation and how to tackle the looming crisis between Ruritania and Arcadia. The President of the Commission, Tony Blair, picks up the phone to speak to the new President of the European Council, José-María Aznar. "Hello, José-María. I just thought I would let you know that I am off to Washington. We have to get the Americans to see that their trade policies are counter-productive and make sure they understand what we are doing to support economic cooperation between Ruritania and Arcadia now that they have made peace."

For a few moments there is a silence on the other end of the line. "But Tony, I have had an invitation to go as well. It is obvious that the security issues between Ruritania and Arcadia are a matter for me, and the big member states also want me to speak for them on the global economic issues. I should be the one to speak for Europe."

Such a conversation might well happen if two high-profile public figures are appointed to chair the European Council and the Commission respectively.

Would this 'double-headed' executive meet the requirements for more legitimacy, transparency and leadership in the European Union? I think not.

The idea of a duumvirate is designed to reconcile two divergent approaches to the future form of government of the Union.

Some large member states, notably the United Kingdom, France and Spain, have suggested the appointment of a long-term president of the European Council who could provide the Union with strategic impulse.

But for many others the Commission's role as independent policy initiator, guardian of the treaties and honest broker between member states will be even more important in a future, enlarged Union and therefore needs to be upheld.

The election of the Commission president by the European Parliament would strengthen the president's political authority vis-à-vis heads of state and government and the College itself. Smaller member states are radically opposed to the appointment of a permanent president of the European Council. They fear that this would lead to an informal monopoly of strategic political input by the large countries, and would inevitably affect the 'Community method'.

They are right. The compromise of two presidents would be unworkable because a double-headed executive would result either in permanent tension between the two presidents, or a further weakening of either the Council or the Commission.

Other questions arise. Would he or she be responsible for boosting the performance and credibility of the Union on the international stage? Whether you like it or not, a coherent and determined Union stance in international affairs still depends primarily on national leaders' preferences, and secondly on efficient decision-making mechanisms. Two presidents would hardly be efficient.

Beyond foreign, security and defence policy, the responsibilities attached to the new position are anyone's guess. Would they include the preparation of the multi-annual and annual work programme of the Union? How could that be done without dramatically constraining the monopoly of initiative of the Commission?

Should one think of two separate work programmes: one dedicated to areas where the Community method applies, and another prepared on issues where member states simply cooperate? The danger of such a 'parallel Europe' has already been criticised at the Convention by the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, who later stressed how difficult it had been to reach a compromise between the French and German positions.

Finally, what would be the power base of the president of the European Council? He would owe his appointment to the heads of state and government, and could not rely on a new structure dedicated to support his or her activities. It is hard to envisage this person displaying the degree of independence towards national leaders when the wider European interest may require such a stand.

The Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt prefers a 'third way' between the six-monthly rotation of the presidency and the 'presidentialisation' of the Council under which "the duties of the President of the Commission and President of the European Council would be executed by one and the same person." He or she would be appointed by the Council, taking into account the results of European elections and requiring the approval of the European Parliament.

The president of the Union would be politically responsible both to the Parliament and the Council. The vice-president of the Commission responsible for common foreign and security policy should replace the High Representative and should be appointed by the Council, and approved by the European Parliament.

The other members of the Commission would be selected by the appointee president and be approved by both the Council and the Parliament.

The European Union needs a simple political and institutional system that can be understood by its citizens.

The idea of a president of Europe is immediately appealing and would replace the odd couple of two presidents chairing different institutions but performing similar tasks.

• Giovanni Grevi is associate director of studies at the European Policy Centre.

Author argues that a single European president would provide far more efficient leadership than the dual presidency currently being proposed.