Responsibilities would thus be split-up where they should not. The dilution of enforcement of the Community competition rules would not be the only result of the split-up. It would also have negative repercussions for the further progress of the single market, liberalisation, enlargement and monetary union. They believed rightly that only the Commission would possess the authority and legitimacy with the wider public necessary to reconcile possible conflicts between policies and to set priorities for the promotion of the principle of competition in view of the evolving Community. And, in fact, the Commission has developed competition policy and its instruments successfully on the basis of a consensus which it achieved throughout the Community in spite of the differences between Member State in terms of approaches, stages of development and weight attributed to competition policy.
Outside observers acknowledge the control practice as competition-oriented and reasonably strict.
The Commission would not be able to fulfill its comprehensive task as effectively as at present, if it had to cede the application of the Community antitrust rules to an agency. The agency, on the other hand, would lack the authority and the flexibility to apply the competition rules successfully in the Community context. What is more, its democratic accountability is uncertain. The proposal would thus also impede the objectives of the Community through the weakening of an institution key to its success. Not just law enforcement One of the main arguments used to justify the creation of an agency is that decisions in individual competition cases should not be a task for a politically oriented decision-making body.