time the accession treaty was signed , through to formal accession and beyond , until the 2004 elections . The decision-making process was not damaged . The legislation mechanism continued working . Where we could see some hiccups was in the areas requiring unanimity , in my view delaying reforms in the areas of justice and home affairs .
What I would describe as unfortunate changes became quickly visible when it came to the intergovernmental machinery . Unprecedentedly frequent meetings of ad hoc or regular groups of Member States took place and summits increased in number . The European Council gradually became a quasi-legislative and decision-making institution , and decisions were frequently pre-agreed among the old Member States , in particular within the Eurogroup . Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about the Union method in the College of Europe in Bruges at the end of 2010 but the spirit of intergovernmentalism had been reinforced by the 2004 enlargement . This spirit was additionally fortified by the Lisbon Treaty , which made the European Council a new European institution , although it also gave the European Parliament important new powers .
Having said all that , I would insist that the 2004 European elections made more visible the sense of a common destiny and an understanding of European unity within diversity . However , this did not eliminate uncertainties , and sometimes even a lack of trust , expressed through the Commission introducing new elements into the accession process . During the electoral campaign , I could see concerns in some old Member States , particularly in Germany , related to economic inequalities or fear of potential tensions regarding the labour market . The post-2004 history raised the questions of whether formally shared values made solidarity sufficiently powerful to avoid undermining the legitimacy of the new order , and whether we did enough after 2004 to protect the
124