13 Europe in the World
| (27587)
10325/06
COM(06) 278
| Commission Communication: Europe in the World — Some Practical Proposals for Greater Coherence, Effectiveness and Visibility
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 25 July 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxxvi (2005-06), para 19 (19 July 2006).
|
| Discussed in Council | 15 June European Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared. Already considered relevant to the debate on "A Citizen's Agenda — Delivering results for Europe"
|
Background
13.1 After reviewing the challenges facing the EU and the EU's
external assets (enlargement; European neighbourhood policy; trade
and competitiveness; development; strategic relations, political
dialogue and CFSP; disaster response, crisis management and ESDP),
the Commission, in its Communication, argues the case for greater
coherence and effectiveness. It proceeds on the basis that, "within
the framework of the existing treaties, the Community and intergovernmental
methods need to be combined on the basis of what best achieves
the desired outcome, rather than institutional theory or dogma".
13.2 The Commission outlines "The Way Ahead"
under four headings:
- Better Strategic Planning
- Increasing Effectiveness and Impact through Better
Delivery
- Better Co-operation between the EU Institutions
and Member States
- Improved Accountability
13.3 When we considered the Communication on 21 June,
we considered that the Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the
Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Dr Kim
Howells), with its cursory summary of the Communication, uninformative;
likewise his statement of the Government's views. This seemed
to us to be at one with the position taken by the previous and
present Minister for Europe with regard to similar documents,
all of which in one way or another related to the future of Europe
in the wake of the rejection, 14 months ago, by French and Dutch
citizens of the Constitutional Treaty — witness the response
to the Commission's Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate
and its "Citizens' Agenda", which we considered on 14
June,[39] as well as
the Commission's Green Paper on "The European Transparency
Initiative", which we also revisited on 21 June,[40]
and which we again consider elsewhere in this Report.[41]
The Government's general position appeared to be to shelter behind
the obvious absence of any consensus on the future of Europe and
to say that it would inform the House of its views once there
was one.
13.4 We considered this somewhat at odds with the
notion of increasing the involvement of national parliaments in
decision-making, as was the submission of an Explanatory Memorandum
on the day after the Council had approved the document in question
and instructed those involved to proceed forthwith. We felt this
was particularly so when the Communication contained significant
proposals that some might see as good managerial sense but which
others might see as "cherry-picking" in the face of
the uncertain future of the arrangements in the Constitutional
Treaty — especially the absence of any comment on the proposal
to "double-hat" the EU Special Representative (EUSR)
and the head of the EC Delegation, given that only two days earlier
the Foreign Secretary had said to our colleagues on the Foreign
Affairs Committee, when questioned about the "double-hatting"
of the EUSR and Head of the EC Delegation in Macedonia, that "this
is certainly not a precedent that the United Kingdom Government
would wish to see repeated and we would resist it".
13.5 We considered this stance unacceptable, and
asked the Minister to provide the Government's views now on the
detailed proposals in the Communication — which ones he
did not agree with, and which ones he endorsed. In particular,
we asked whether he agreed with the Commission that, "within
the framework of the existing treaties, the Community and intergovernmental
methods need to be combined on the basis of what best achieves
the desired outcome, rather than institutional theory or dogma".
13.6 When the Minister of Europe responded in July,
he continued to be reluctant to provide the sort of answer that
the Committee was seeking: he did "not believe that setting
out the Government's detailed views on each of the Commission's
recommendations will be helpful until the debate at EU level has
developed further". He also endorsed proposals on improving
the internal coherence of the Commission's input to EU external
policy and gave some examples of recommendations that would require
further discussions between the Brussels institutions and the
Member States and which he favoured.
13.7 On the question of "double-hatting",
he said:
"the Foreign Secretary stated our position
at the Foreign Affairs Committee on 13 June. We would not anticipate
an extension of the precise model used in the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia to other countries. However, as the Committee
is aware, the EU will need to take decisions later this year about
the organisation of its representation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
once the Office of the High Representative closes, probably in
June 2007. After this point, the EU will have both a key political
role in Bosnia, in the form of an EUSR who will take on some of
the OHR's functions, and a substantial amount of leverage in the
form of the Stabilisation and Association Process, run by the
Commission.
"In our view there is a good argument for
having the EU speak with one voice on these two closely interlocking
issues, so maximising the effectiveness of our presence in BiH.
This points to a different form of double hatting, which reflects
the greater political content of the job, under which the EUSR
(that is to say a politician, or senior national official, appointed
by the Council) also heads up the Commission's presence in country.
As with the FYROM case, safeguards would be needed to ensure that
lines of accountability were not blurred. Discussions on the way
forward in BiH are still at an early stage, but I would welcome
the opportunity to discuss our thinking with the Committee.
"During the term of the incoming Presidency
the Government will continue to discuss all of these issues with
the other Member States, the Commission and the Council Secretariat.
I shall keep you up to date on any important developments."
13.8 He also noted "your invitation to come
back to these issues" in the debate on "A Citizens'
Agenda", which will now take place on 26 October.
13.9 We cleared the Commission Communication, noting
that we were less clear than the Minister that the Foreign Secretary's
position on "double-hatting" and his are one and the
same and that the debate on "A Citizen's Agenda" would
also provide the House with an opportunity to explore the Government's
thinking on this and other relevant issues, which the Minister
continued to be regrettably reluctant to share with it at present.[42]
13.10 That debate will now take place on 26 October.
In the meantime, during his appearance before them on 13 July,
the Minister undertook to write to Sub-Committee 'C' of the House
of Lords EU Select Committee concerning which of the proposals
in "Europe in the World" could be implemented without
further consideration of the Constitutional Treaty .
The Minister's letter
13.11 In his letter of 25 July 2006 to the Chairman,
which letter he copied to us, he now says that "the proposals
in the Commission Communication are distinct from the provisions
envisaged in the Constitutional Treaty, and could be introduced
without the Constitutional Treaty", because:
"the Constitutional Treaty sought to define
a new institutional dispensation, and set the terms by which EU
member states and the institutions would interact with each other.
The Commission's Communication, on the other hand, is predicated
on existing treaties and focuses on: a) improvements to internal
Commission working practices in external policy areas; and b)
how the EU can make its external policies more coherent through
stronger co-ordination between member states and the institutions."
Conclusion
13.12 As we noted earlier, there are no doubt
other views. Some will emerge in the evidence to be given to our
counterparts in the Lords, who are carrying out an inquiry into
this Communication.
13.13 The forthcoming debate will also no doubt
touch on these matters, which is why we considered it appropriate
to report the Minister's views to the House.
39 (27496) 9390/06 and (27497) 9393/06; see HC 34-xxxi
(2005-06), paras 1 and 30, (14 June 2006). Back
40
(27508) 9412/06; see HC 34-xxxii (2005-06), para 4, (21 June 2006). Back
41
See para 12 above. Back
42
HC 34-xxxvi (2005-06), para 19 (19 July 2006). Back
|
