Select Committee on European Scrutiny Fourteenth Report


Reform of the Council

The Presidency

53. The Presidency of the European Council is currently held by each Member State in turn for a period of six months. The Presidency country also hosts and chairs the meetings of the Council of Ministers in its various formations during that period. The Constitutional Treaty would change this system by creating the post of President of the European Council, elected by the European Council by qualified majority voting (QMV) for a term of two and a half years, renewable once (see box). He or she would chair the meetings of the European Council, 'drive forward its work', 'ensure the preparation and continuity' of its work, and promote 'cohesion and consensus' within it.

Article I-22: The European Council President


1. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end his or her term of office in accordance with the same procedure.


2. The President of the European Council:


(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;

(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;


(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;


(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.


The President of the European Council shall, at his or her level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the Union Minister of Foreign Affairs.


3. The President of the European Council shall not hold a national office.


54. When we considered reform of the EU's institutions in 2002, we concluded that the six-month Presidency system had major disadvantages, due to the shortness of each Presidency, and supported the proposal for the European Council to have an elected President with a term of at least two years, though we regarded it as essential to establish parliamentary accountability for such a President.[80] Professor Dashwood argued that the six-month system needed replacing in order to strengthen the Council and European Council, not least because with 25 Member States each country would hold the Presidency only every 12 or 13 years and most of their experience would have been dissipated before they held it again; also an acting head of State would be too busy to visit and co-ordinate 24 other Member States.[81] Most who gave us views on this point considered that a longer-term President would provide better co-ordination and continuity. In this inquiry we sought to establish how the new system would work in practice, and whether there would be problems to overcome.

55. The Foreign Secretary told us that the President was likely to be a former member of the European Council.[82] The Treaty does not specify how the various Council of Ministers formations (dealing with specific subject areas) are to be chaired, but, according to the Foreign Secretary, 'we have agreed politically that the presidencies or chairs of the various functional councils of ministers (as opposed to the European Council) would be on an eighteen month basis with three Member States for each team presidency. That is going to be done not by the Constitutional Treaty but by a decision of the European Council. So we can modify the arrangement if it is not properly fitting in.'[83]

56. At present the European Council is chaired by the head of State or Government of the Presidency country and the same country provides the chairs of all the Council of Ministers formations, providing a degree of co-ordination. The Foreign Secretary indicated that, under the new system, the President 'will have to coordinate the work of the team presidencies and help to drive those forward, which will involve quite a lot of negotiation'.[84] Professor Pernice argued that 'Coordination of European policies will become more difficult with the split of the function of presidency between the President of the European Council, the Foreign Minister and the Presidency of the General Council and the specialised Council formations', and believed that regular meetings between the various parties would be needed to ensure consistency.[85] Professor Dashwood believed that the European Council President could have been made more effective if his post had been combined with that of President of the General Affairs Council; also, neither the President nor his staff would be involved in COREPER.[86] Statewatch believed the Treaty does not make clear what powers, if any, the President of the European Council would have over the individual Council formations, and, since it is concerned about the President's accountability, wishes to limit those powers; 'For example, it should not be the role of the President to establish his or her own agenda for Justice and Home Affairs matters and promote it'.[87] Professor Eeckhout thought that the team presidencies might move towards being 'a pure chairing function'.[88]

57. The President's relationship with other office-holders would also be important. These include the President of the Commission, and Andrew Duff MEP suggested that the two 'will have to learn to cohabit'.[89] There was also scope for tension between the European Council President and the proposed Foreign Minister.[90] Furthermore, the three participants in team presidencies would have to work closely together to ensure that problems did not develop due to the unfamiliar lack of autonomy. Professor Eeckhout's conclusion, with which we agree, is that:

'personalisation of the institutions' chairs and presidencies may contribute to more effective decision-making. Those who will find themselves in these positions will need to realise that in the consensus-based EU system of checks and balances all institutions need to cooperate, and that they will need to take on a mediation role in order to be effective.'

58. The Foreign Secretary accepted that it remained to be seen how the new system would work, but he was 'not in any doubt that it will be better than the current arrangements'. We continue to believe that a longer-term European Council Presidency will be a better system than the existing one, but we accept that is hard to predict at this stage how it will work in practice, and that careful management and a willingness to cooperate will be essential in some areas, especially as regards the new system of team presidencies. We reserve judgment on the question of the accountability of the European Council President until it is clearer whether he or she has more than a co-ordinating role.

The EU's Foreign Minister

59. The Treaty provides for an EU Minister of Foreign Affairs, elected by QMV and requiring approval by the President of the Commission (see box). The Minister will contribute to the development of the CFSP, carry it out as mandated by the Council, co-ordinate other aspects of the EU's external policies, chair the Foreign Affairs Council and be a Vice-President of the Commission. The intention is to end the present division of responsibilities between the Foreign Minister of the Presidency country (changing every six months), the Commissioner with responsibility for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary General/High Representative.

Article I-28: The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs


1. The European Council, acting by qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the Commission, shall appoint the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. The European Council may end his or her term of office by the same procedure.


2. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy. He or she shall contribute by his or her proposals to the development of that policy, which he or she shall carry out as mandated by the Council. The same shall apply to the common security and defence programme.


3. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall preside over the Foreign Affairs Council.


4. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission. He or she shall ensure the consistency of the Union's external action. He or she shall be responsible within the Commission for responsibilities incumbent on it in external relations and for coordinating other aspects of the Union's external action. In exercising these responsibilities within the Commission, and only for these responsibilities, the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be bound by Commission procedures to the extent that this is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 3.


60. While some of our witnesses welcomed the new arrangements as contributing to the coherence and effectiveness of the EU's foreign policy, others were concerned that it would increase the EU's role in foreign affairs at the expense of Member States and their freedom of action. Martin Howe QC argued that there would be 'a supranational figure, the Minister, presiding over meetings of the Council of Ministers on foreign policy', together with a supranational diplomatic service, and there is likely to be 'a one way effect under which the field is progressively covered by common policies which are successively adopted'.[91] Professor Denza regarded the title itself as inappropriate: 'international organisations generally do not have foreign ministers; States have foreign ministers. That is a political problem'.[92]

61. Those who provided evidence on this matter were most concerned about the 'double-hatting' of the Minister, who would be responsible to the European Council but also a member of the Commission. Professor Denza believed that 'the proposed European Foreign Minister will have the confidence of neither institution':[93]

'You have provisions in the new Constitution that say that the loyalty of the Foreign Minister is somehow accepted because he takes instructions from the Council. It seems to me that will undermine his position, not only legally but politically, in the College of Commissioners'.[94]

His position would be 'impossible' in the case of conflict between the Council and Commission over competence: instead of greater integration of the functions of the Council and Commission, 'you simply have the unfortunate Foreign Minister with a foot in both camps'.[95]

62. Professor Dashwood pointed out that the Commission and Council did not have responsibility for separate spheres of external policy and questioned which side the Foreign Minister would take in 'disputes of the kind that have frequently arisen between the Council and the Commission, over issues such as whether the Community is exclusively competent in the matters to which a given agreement relates, or what is the correct legal basis in the Treaty for concluding an agreement'. However, he was reassured by the fact that the Minister's responsibility to the Commission would now be only 'to the extent that this is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 3' in the Article, relating to the Minister's responsibility to the Council:

'I infer from the phrase which has been added … that, when presiding over the Foreign Affairs Council, the Foreign Minister will not be bound by the Commission's view on issues such as exclusivity or non-exclusivity of Union competence, or the choice of legal basis for an envisaged agreement. In other words ... the Foreign Minister will be wearing his/her Council hat.'[96]

63. Professor Eeckhout welcomed the proposed new post, stating that there were currently two EU administrations dealing with external affairs, 'which have developed an unhealthy antagonism, and these needed to be merged'.[97]

64. The relationship between the Foreign Minister and the President of the European Council also potentially gives rise to problems. The Federal Union stated that:

'The new Foreign Minister will be a Vice-President of the European Commission, at the head of the EU's external representative services and a member of the Commission that coordinates trade, aid and the other external policies of the EU. The Chair of the European Council will have none of these resources or responsibilities, but rather a symbolic role in external representation. The two posts can work well together, but foreign policy will have to be developed through the EU's institutions — thereby respecting the role of the member states — rather than on the hoof.' [98]

65. We would have preferred a less grandiose title than Minister for Foreign Affairs, but we recognise the need for better co-ordination of the EU's foreign policy, and we hope that creation of the new post will have that result. Matters of responsibility and accountability are particularly difficult in foreign affairs because of the differing roles of the EU institutions and of Member States. It remains to be seen whether 'double-hatting' will work well, but, on balance, it would appear that the indications are positive.


80   Ibid., paras 59-61. Back

81   Ev 50. See also Q 19. Back

82   Q 19. Back

83   Ibid. Back

84   Ibid. Back

85   Ev 125. Back

86   Ev 50. Back

87   Ev 122. Back

88   Ev 32. Back

89   Unpublished evidence. Back

90   See para 64 below. Back

91   Q 177. Back

92   Q 71. Back

93   Ev 15. Back

94   Q71. Back

95   Ev 15; Q 71. Back

96   Ev 51. Back

97   Ev 32. Back

98   Ev 100. See also Ev 32. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 6 April 2005