The Treaty of Rome stipulates that, after a certain transitional period, the decision-making procedure of the Council of Ministers should be transferred to the majority decision, so as to embody the spirit of supranational integration. However, due to Charles de Gaulle's insistence on "Europe of the Motherland" and his resistance, the "Luxemburg compromise" of 1966 maintained the principle of consensus, prevented the transition to the majority decision, and continued to maintain the "intergovernmental cooperation" nature of the decision of the Council of Ministers, thus enabling the European Community to continue to operate on the basis of "intergovernmental cooperation".
As early as 196 1, when France put forward the European political union, it advocated that the union could be led by a Council composed of heads of government of various countries, and then put forward the "Fu Xie Plan". The plan met with opposition and failed. In the 1970s, faced with the new situation, the inefficiency of existing decision-making and the lack of action ability, people strongly demanded to change this situation. All kinds of ideas. On behalf of the Action Committee of the United States of America, Jean Monnet pointed out that "it is necessary to raise the decision-making power to the level of heads of state and government, because only they have the right to make the final decision". At the initiative of France, 1974, the EU heads of government meeting in Paris decided that, within the scope of EU Council and political cooperation, heads of government (and foreign ministers of various countries) would meet three times a year, or at any time if necessary; The institutionalization and regular holding of summit meetings will not affect the rules and procedures stipulated in the treaty of the same institution, nor will it affect the provisions of relevant European political cooperation documents. [9]3 19 Since then, the summit of heads of government has been institutionalized, regular and regular, and it has been called the "European Council".
After the establishment of the Council of Europe, it has become the main political decision-maker and the highest decision-maker of European integration. Discussions and decisions on many major issues concerning European integration and the construction of the same institution were first held in the European Council. Its suggestions, conclusions, instructions, decisions, etc. Through the Council of Ministers of the same body decision-making body, it will be transformed into the same body decisions, policies or regulations with legal status and effectiveness. By the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Council has obviously become the highest decision-maker in the EU, and it is a real "super decision-maker", ranking above the three pillars of the same institution. It not only relegates the European sports commission and the Council of Ministers to a subordinate position, but also actually takes over the position of the highest decision-maker of the Council of Ministers, which is not bound by the European sports parliament. The treaty stipulates that "the European Council will provide the necessary impetus for the development of the alliance and formulate the general policy". In terms of economic and monetary policies, the Council of Ministers shall propose a draft basic policy and submit it to the European Council. On the basis of the report of the Council of Ministers, the European Council will "discuss and draw conclusions on the economic policy guidelines of member States and the * * * Community", and the Council of Ministers will make recommendations on this basis; In foreign policy and security policy, the Council of Ministers shall decide that a matter falls within the scope of joint action "in accordance with the general norms of the Council of Europe". Council of Europe sometimes participates in discussions and decisions on specific issues and "handles some affairs within the jurisdiction of the same institution".
Some scholars call Council of Europe "the gatekeeper of the same institution". The European Council has made a decision before the EC adopts policies, legislation or actions on integration in a certain field. The establishment of the Council of Europe has indeed strengthened the decision-making ability and action ability of the Community and promoted the process of integration. However, the establishment of the Council of Europe strengthens the "intergovernmental principle". Both Council of Europe and the Council of Ministers are composed of representatives of member governments, but in some cases, the Council of Ministers adopts majority or specific majority voting, which is a combination of intergovernmental and super-nationalism. The European Council can only make decisions by consensus, which is a "traditional intergovernmental arrangement". When Council of Europe became the highest decision-maker, it enabled member countries to implement supranational integration in specific areas of the integration process, and carry out macro-control at a higher level to ensure that the transfer of sovereignty or functions in certain areas would not be a simple "transfer", but a kind of "* * * * *" or "* * * * *". Therefore, scholars pointed out: "Council of Europe's research strongly proves that ... integration is carried out according to the principles of intergovernmental theory." "In the process of integration, there is a powerful state control factor, which allows * * * to enjoy sovereignty in some fields, but ensures that power will not be transferred from nation-state to * * * entity ... The most urgent thing is to keep the intergovernmental way as much as possible and let the government act as the gatekeeper between the domestic political system and the local * * * entities as much as possible ... So the decision-making system of European * * * entities depends on the agreement reached by member States." This is a true portrayal of the process of European integration.
In fact, this situation has happened before. 1985, a number of countries (France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) signed the Schengen Agreement, and decided to gradually lift the control over their * * * same borders, which was formally implemented in 1995. The Schengen Agreement originated from outside the scope of the treaty, but was gradually brought into the scope of the treaty. The "constructive abandonment" introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty in foreign and security policy is also a kind of flexibility. If it is really difficult for Member States to accept a proposal, it makes it possible for them to abstain from voting. This "constructive abstention" does not prevent the Council of Ministers from adopting the resolution, but countries that abstain cannot participate in the implementation of the resolution. However, in the case of a specific majority vote, if the constructive abstention exceeds 1/3, it is decided not to pass. In the history of European integration, there are also examples of lack of flexibility. 1950 After the Schumann Plan was put forward by France, Britain thought that Schumann Plan required accepting its "supranational principle" without prior consultation. Monet made it clear that France stands firm on this issue. Later, in view of Schumann's tendency to seek a compromise arrangement, he reiterated that if Britain was accepted to participate in a special capacity, France's proposal would be replaced by a nondescript deformed institution, which would no longer have the principle of * * * and the independent nature of higher institutions. France's motive is not to weaken the supranational nature of Schumann plan-it believes that only in this way can Germany be effectively restricted, thus preventing the possibility of a new war. However, the British government pointed out: "If the French government insists on establishing a high-level institution with certain sovereign power as a prerequisite for the talks, then your Majesty's government will not accept this condition." On June 3, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg issued a communique in Paris, expressing their acceptance of the French terms, but Britain did not sign it. [8]121-122 France adheres to the principle of invariance with good intentions, but its lack of flexibility is not conducive to reaching an agreement. "Flexibility" is beneficial to integration, but it may also have adverse consequences. For example, some countries always do not participate in some aspects of integration, which may really lead to "two-speed Europe", which people do not want to see. So some "flexible" measures are strictly controlled.