Seville Summit – Creeping Council influence at Commission’s expense

Seville Summit – Creeping Council influence at Commission’s expense

Stanley Crossick argues that the Decisions at the Seville Summit that the Council establish multiannual strategic programmes and annual operating programmes should not have been taken and could be a further erosion of the role of the Commission and also an unreasonable exclusion of Parliament.

Reports of the European Council meeting in Seville on 21 and 22 June focus on the limited reform measures adopted concerning the structure and functioning of the Council and the resistance to the attempts made to pre-empt the decisions of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

However, Annex II of the Presidency Conclusions states:

C.4 “In keeping with the role conferred upon it by the Treaty of defining the general political guidelines of the Union, the European Council shall adopt, on the basis of a joint proposal drawn up by the Presidencies concerned in consultation with the Commission and acting on a recommendation by the General Affairs Council, a multiannual strategic programme for the three years to come. The first such strategic programme will be adopted in December 2003.

C.5 In the light of the multiannual strategic programme referred to above, an annual operating programme of Council activities shall be submitted to the General Affairs Council in December each year. This programme shall be proposed jointly by the next two Presidencies in line and shall have regard, inter alia, to relevant points arising from the dialogue o the political priorities for the year, conducted at the Commission’s initiative. The final version of the annual programme shall be drawn up on the basis of the General Affairs Council’s discussions.

With a view to implementing these arrangements as quickly as possible and by way of derogation from the first subparagraph, the first annual operating programme of Council activities shall be drawn up in December 2002.”

It is important to note that the three year strategic programme is to be adopted by the European Council, based on a joint proposal drawn up by the (six) Presidencies concerned “in consultation with the Commission and acting on a recommendation by the General Affairs Council.” The annual operating programme of Council activities is to be proposed jointly by the next two Presidencies and drawn up on the basis of General Affairs Council discussions.

It is unclear whether the multiannual strategic programme envisaged in Paragraph C.4 is of the Union or just of the Council. The annual operating programme foreseen in Paragraph C.5 is expressly stated to be “of Council activities”.

It will immediately be seen that the Commission is not the proposer of either programme but is merely consulted. The European Parliament is not even mentioned. These are aberrations of the highly successful “Community method”.

Currently, each Presidency produces its work programme which is issued without debate. The Commission produces its work programme which is debated in Parliament. Although the practice of each Presidency issuing its detailed work programme – as opposed to just its priorities – is unnecessary, the Presidency and Commission programmes have co-existed and not been seen as contradictory. It is not indicated whether the new programmes will replace – or be in addition to – the Presidency programmes nor how they relate to the Commission’s work programme.

While the Seville Conclusions cannot legally usurp the Commission’s Treaty right of initiative, in practice this right could be politically circumscribed. The Commission always takes into account the likely attitude of the Member States when making legislative proposals, but sometimes decides that, as guardian of the Treaty, it must act regardless of what the Member States think. The European Parliament will usually be in support of such action by the Commission. The Commission’s sole right to propose Community legislation is central to the Community method. Sadly, there are ongoing attempts to erode this monopoly right of the Commission.

If in practice these changes result in a downgrading of the Commission and the elimination of the European Parliament in the process, this would be of considerable concern. It would go against public commitments to democracy and political legitimacy. It also offends the principles of openness – there apparently having been no prior consultation with the Commission or Parliament – and transparency – as the two paragraphs, despite their significance, are hidden in Annex II under the innocuous sub-heading “Programming of Council activities”.

Although these changes do not require Treaty amendment, it would have been preferable for the European Council to have awaited the report of the Convention before acting. The respective roles of the Commission, European Council and Council are central issues to be addressed by the Convention.

I am very much in favour of inter-institutional programmes but believe that the most democratic and efficient solution is for:

• The Commission to propose a rolling EU strategic programme, which is then debated by Parliament and the Council and agreed between the three institutions and endorsed by the European Council.
• The same procedure be adopted for the annual EU implementation programme.
• These programmes replace both the present Commission and Presidency programmes.

A matter, as important as the establishment of a regular strategic programme, should not be introduced by stealth and should be explained in unequivocal terms.

• Is the rolling programme that of the Union or the Council?
• How much detail is it to contain?
• What precise role is proposed for the Commission?
• Why is Parliament excluded?
• Will there still be Presidency programmes?
• How do the two new programmes relate to the Commission’s work programme?
• Why cannot the first strategic programme be produced in 2002 instead of beginning with the annual implementing programme?

Stanley Crossick is Director and Founding Chairman of the European Policy Centre

For more analyses see The European Policy Centre’s

website.