The EU, its acts and its "methods"
Notre Europe's viewpoint | 09/05/2011 

As every year, “Europe Day" invites us to discuss the EU’s real-world impacts and to analyse its methods and growth as an organisation. The current news agenda is particularly stimulating, with wide-ranging debate about the euro and, more recently, tensions over the “Schengen zone” – another emblematic symbol of European integration. The EU acts, reacts, adapts. Meanwhile doubts and questions persist among its citizens.

A succession of international and economic crises has also led to the multiplication of EU summit meetings over the last few semesters. The organisation of these meetings has been facilitated by the new “permanent presidency” of the European Council, created by the Lisbon Treaty and occupied by Herman Van Rompuy. These developments have given a new urgency and relevance to the classic debate between supporters of the “community method” and those of the “intergovernmental method”. This debate – superficially theoretical – is decisive for the future of European integration, and therefore for us all.

The debate already surfaced at the time of the European Convention, in particular, see the contribution by Michel Barnier and Antonio Vitorino and was recently fed by Angela Merkel’s “method speech” in Bruges on 2 November 2010. In her speech, the federal chancellor affirms that “the essential point is to have a common position on the important subjects”, and evokes a new approach: “A coordinated action in a spirit of solidarity, each of us in our respective sphere of responsibility, but all of us sharing the same goal. For me this is the new ‘Union method’ which we so need.”

It would of course be imprudent to form a fully-formed opinion at this stage, only a year and half after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. But the debate is on the table: it must not be neglected, and its terms and possible outcomes deserve clarification.

Notre Europe considers that the “community method” has demonstrated its effectiveness. It must be far more widely applied, in particular in areas in need of urgent action such as immigration and energy. This does not contradict the fact to be aware that important political changes are in progress, which affect the relationships between the EU’s different decision-makers.

In this spirit, Notre Europe asked two eminent specialists and practitioners of European integration to describe their vision of the current developments and the consequences – positive and negative – for the EU.

Paolo Ponzano, special advisor to Commissioner Maros Sefcovic and senior fellow at the European University Institute in Florence, reminds us of the merits of the community method and warns against intergovernmental backsliding in a Notre Europe Policy Brief entitled “Community Method or Intergovernmental Method: an Irrelevant Debate?”

Philippe de Schoutheete, former Belgian permanent representative to the EU and director of the Europe department at the Institut Egmont (Royal Institute for International Relations), produces an analysis which is less critical of current developments. He points in particular to the virtues of involvement by heads of state and government, in a Notre Europe Policy Brief entitled “The Form of Decision-Making in the Union”.

Notre Europe is convinced that these two contributions will be useful in the debate taking place in Brussels and in the EU member states – a debate whose uncertain outcome is decisive for the future of European integration.
    Send to a friend     Notre Europe's viewpoint
In view
Debate: The European Union and its "methods"
Speaker's Corner | 09/05/2011
The new permanent presidency of the European Council (an innovation of the Lisbon Treaty) and a succession of international and economic crises have lead to a multiplicator of EU summit meetings over the last few semesters. These meetings have given a new urgency and relevance to the classic debate between supporters of the “community method” and those of the “intergovernmental method”. The debate already surfaced at the time of the European Convention, in particular, see the contribution by Michel Barnier and Antonio Vitorino, and was recently fed by Angela Merkel’s “method speech” in Bruges on 2 November 2010. Notre Europe has asked two eminent specialists and practitioners of European integration, Paolo Ponzano and Philippe de Schoutheete, to clarify the terms of this debate and to describe their vision of the current developments and the consequences – positive and negative – for the EU. Notre Europe will invite researchers and interested observers to respond to these contributions and to participate to this debate – superficially theoretical – with an uncertain outcome which is decisive for the future of European integration.