Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 319)
TUESDAY 8 JANUARY 2008
Mr Jens Nymand Christensen and Mr Pascal Lefevre
Q300 Lord Roper:
Perhaps I can pursue that with the question of the treble-hatted
post of the High Representative. As you have said, he will have
the current role of the High Representative, status as a member
of the Commission and head of the external relations department.
What do you see will be the relationship between the High Representative
and the three Union Presidents?
Mr Nymand Christensen: He is a member of the
College of Commissioners and will participate in all Commission
decisions. He is a normal Commissioner in that sense. In the Treaty
he has been given a specific role identified in the field of foreign
policy and security where he can take initiatives and advance
EU positions. The first thing one must realise is vis-a"-vis
the President of the Commission and the rest of the College, on
an ongoing basis, a weekly basis, he will be involved in the management
of EU policy. It is important to stress that the role that Mrs
Ferrero-Waldner exercises today is also a role of co-ordinating
what various Commissioners and their departments are pursuing
as policies in the external field. That is why it is very important
to have this treble-hatted man or woman, in the College because
the Commissioners still maintain their prerogatives and their
responsibilities of negotiating agreements with third countries
in their policy areas. He or she will have a key role within the
College of ensuring coherence and co-ordination together with
the President, who of course does it for all policy areas. Vis-a"-vis
the President of the European Council, we know that the European
Council returns to a number of foreign policy issues each time
and discusses them and I would expect the preparation of the Conclusions
of the European Council will very much rely on his input and his
draft texts rather than on the situation today where the rotating
Presidency chair, plus Council Secretariat, works and tries to
put together the pieces. We expect it to lead to a much greater
degree of continuity and even higher quality, not that there is
any reason to criticise now, but the fact it is the same man or
woman with the same kind of common service under them to underpin
these kinds of texts will be very helpful.
Q301 Lord Roper:
For example, in terms of bilateral summits with strategic partners,
such as the United States and Russia, say, would you expect you
would have the three Presidents plus the High Representative representing
the European Union?
Mr Nymand Christensen: The High Representative
is at ministerial level, so it is a different level. He or she
will not represent the EU at the level of Heads of State and Government.
The question is how to represent the EU at that level and, as
I have described, it is clearly laid down in the new Treaty text
how that will be done. It works very well already with the rotating
Presidency, so once you are at these meetings with Mr Putin or
Mr Bush it works very well as to how they share the roles and
who advances the EU's positions on various points.
Q302 Lord Roper:
You referred earlier on to his chairing the Council of Foreign
Ministers. Do you see the existing General Affairs and External
Relations Council being divided with a Foreign Affairs Council
being chaired by the High Representative and the General Affairs
Council made up of the same foreign ministers but chaired by the
rotating Presidency?
Mr Nymand Christensen: I do not think I would
like to speculate on how the Council will organise its work to
create a separate General Affairs Council. I see there is merit
in that insofar as it has often been the same person, the same
minister chairing it, but under the rotating system it is clear
what we in the old jargon called Pillar II files will now be chaired
by the High Representative and, therefore, there is a lot of merit
in saying if there were to be issues outside that remit of a general
nature they would be chaired by the Presidency Member State.
Q303 Lord Roper:
But, for example, on development co-operation affairs, which would
presumably be prepared in the Commission and then go through a
Council working party to COREPER, they would presumably go to
a Council which would be chaired by a rotating President rather
than by the High Representative. Is that an assumption we are
entitled to make?
Mr Nymand Christensen: I am not the expert on
it but it reflects the logic of the role of the High Representative.
Q304 Lord Wright of Richmond:
My Lord Chairman, can I ask a particular question about the Middle
East Quartet. Could you just describe to us how the representation
exists now and how far, if at all, it will change under the Reform
Treaty?
Mr Nymand Christensen: I am sorry, I cannot.
I do not know that. If you ask me I will get you the answer.
Q305 Lord Wright of Richmond:
That would be helpful.
Mr Nymand Christensen: I would like to consult
with the experts in DG RELEX:
Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr Nymand
Christensen. I have three colleagues, Lord Powell, Lord Blackwell
and Lord Maclennan, who want to come in on this rather complex
question of the relationships.
Q306 Lord Powell of Bayswater:
You gave a description at the beginning of a clear division of
labour, but actually the more you talk it through the more crowded.
It sounds as though the leadership of the European Union is going
to become confused with many of these people having overlapping
responsibilities. Is it not the fact that these issues have not
yet been determined and probably will not be determined until
the Treaty comes into effect, if it does, and all of this has
to be tried out in practice because so much of it will depend
on personalities or the nature of the people chosen for particular
jobs? At the moment it does seem you have got really quite a crowd
up at the top there, particularly in the foreign affairs area.
The Commission obviously has a role, the President of the Council
will have a role and the High Representative will have a role,
but trying to separate those roles and grade them as only one
does Heads of Government, one handles governments at a lower level,
I do not believe that is going to work in practice. Mr Solana
has been dealing with Heads of Government for the last ten years
or so and I do not think he is suddenly going to stop. Surely
the case is that it will be something which will just work itself
out in practice over quite a protracted period.
Mr Nymand Christensen: The first thing one should
note to give a very simple answer, we are not creating a new element
which will crowd the top. There is already a President of the
European Council, he is only there for six months. The issue that
you are talking about today, it is not that under the new Treaty
we have created a supplementary President which did not exist
before and who will suddenly be shuffling around trying to get
his or her space, that is not the case. For many, many years the
President of the European Council has played a very high profile
role in the EU, in international fora and bilateral meetings with
international leaders.
Q307 Lord Powell of Bayswater:
You are not getting rid of the national Presidency though, that
will continue.
Mr Nymand Christensen: No, but it is clear that
the national Head of Government will no longer play that role.
It means that Mrs Merkel would not have played that role in last
spring's Brussels machinery and in the various bilateral meetings
because the European Council and, therefore, the Heads of Government
and State would have been represented at these meetings by their
chosen chair. If it is an overcrowding, it is an overcrowding
we know of today. We read that the Treaty, for legitimate reasons,
has identified the roles of the players and also made sure that
what you call the overlapping—you can never draw a complete
line in a very few lines when you talk about drafting a Treaty—the
authors of the Treaty have successfully tried to describe very
simply the roles of at least the two players you are thinking
of. You are codifying how the President of the European Council
and the President of the Commission are playing out their roles
today and the only really innovative element is that the chair
of the European Council is elected for two and a half years and,
therefore, replaces a rotating chair. I do not subscribe to the
idea that the new Treaty in any way leads to further overcrowding
or overlapping compared with what we know today; on the contrary,
I think the roles have now been clearly defined.
Q308 Lord Powell of Bayswater:
One very brief supplementary. Supposing a large country, let us
take the example of France, held the rotating Presidency, would
the President of France simply stand aside and think he had no
role at some international meeting which was very important to
the European Union where the President of the Council and the
President of the Commission were present?
Mr Nymand Christensen: I have to answer yes.
I cannot imagine he would be invited, it is as simple as that.
Mr Putin has a meeting with the leadership in Europe once a year,
the invitations are not scattered, they go to individual people,
and if the EU Treaty foresees that the EU will be represented
in foreign and security matters by a permanent chair of the European
Council then that is the person who will be invited. (The answer
was continued off the record)
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
That is a very important point you have made. (The remark was
continued off the record)
Q309 Lord Blackwell:
Two quick questions. On the overcrowding, has there been any discussion
about whether at some stage the President of the Council and the
President of the Commission might be combined? I understand the
text originally specified that they should be separate posts and
it now does not have that specification.
Mr Nymand Christensen: As Lord Kerr knows, it
was discussed at the Convention by a few members of the Convention
but was never subsequently pursued and at least among the government
representatives there was a feeling that they should be two separate
posts and they are defined as such.
Q310 Lord Blackwell:
So it is not a current issue?
Mr Nymand Christensen: It is not a current issue.
From memory, but Pascal Lefevre, who was in the Secretariat of
the Commission following the IGC and the Convention, will know
more, I believe it was an idea by Benelux countries to have that
discussed.
Q311 Lord Blackwell:
So it is an issue that could return at some point?
Mr Nymand Christensen: Yes, it could return.
It was discussed, at least amongst some government representatives,
but not considered to be opportune. As I say, one should not underestimate
what it involves to chair the European Council. It is not something
where the President of the Commission just walks across rue de
la Loi and meets 27 Heads of State and Government and starts chairing
a meeting and has an agenda. One of the reasons behind the reform
is a number of prime ministers have said that it is such an enormous
workload to prepare these meetings and to try to get the 27 before
the meeting to have largely agreed positions so they do not spend
days and nights discussing the Conclusions, as you know. At this
stage, at least, I think it is not on.
Q312 Lord Blackwell:
Secondly, could you say a word about what you see as the significance
of the European Council becoming an institution of the European
Union, what the benefit of that is and what the implications are
in terms of these relationships?
Mr Nymand Christensen: I would say very small,
legally speaking it becomes an institution. If you read the existing
Treaty, the European Council is weirdly floating in the air, so
to speak, it is very difficult to see what it is. It has worked
quite well in that way for many years but there was a feeling
it had reached maturity in recognising it was a body in its own
right rather than just a super Council of Ministers kind of thing.
They do play a very particular role in setting the strategic objectives
and settling some of the most thorny issues of conflict and disagreement
between Member States. The time was right to recognise it by giving
it that full status as an institution. The implications are not
very important in the sense that it will still be relying on the
institution of the Council of Ministers for its functioning and
I do not see it having a major practical implication.
Q313 Chairman:
It is quite clear that the role of the European Court of Justice
vis-a"-vis the European Council would be very limited indeed
then.
Mr Nymand Christensen: When you read the Conclusions
of the European Council it is very difficult to see how the European
Court can come in on them. A few of the cases I have in mind,
and perhaps Pascal can remind me of them, is when the Heads of
State want to take very specific decisions they switch out of
their role as the European Council and into the format of the
Council of Ministers to be able to execute the practical role.
You are right, there is that institutional role vis-a"-vis
the Court but in general it is not a substantial change.
Q314 Lord Maclennan of Rogart:
The mode of appointment of the President of the Commission is
changed by the Treaty and is different from that of the mode of
appointment of the President of the Council and the High Representative.
Do you think that will have any political significance for the
role of the President of the Commission vis-a"-vis the other
two? Secondly, do you anticipate that there might be greater continuity
of initiative, if you like, or less jerky initiatives flowing
from the change to a two and a half year Presidency of the Council
with the possibility that there might be a greater identity of
view between the President of the Council and the President of
the Commission about carrying initiatives forward?
Mr Nymand Christensen: On the second question,
the Member States already work in a rolling three Presidency mould,
so we already see an 18 month programme together to ensure that
one Presidency takes over as in a relay from the previous one
that leads to a successful outcome, if possible, of the discussion.
The European Council as such shows a high degree of continuity
in its work. For instance the Spring Council, came back to the
Lisbon Strategy, they were continously pursuing key files. Today
there is a high degree of continuity which to a large extent is
influenced by the policy agenda of the European Commission which
takes the legislative initiatives and institutes the general debates
which we have in the European institutions. I hope we can say
the continuity is going to be at least as great as it was. It
is an issue for the President of the Council, together with the
President of the Commission, ensuring that the European Council
contributes to the realisation of the agenda agreed by all, often
on the basis of initiatives from the European Commission. In answer
to your first question about the election of the President of
the European Commission, it is true that the procedure is new.
We believe it gives the President of the European Commission great
democratic legitimacy insofar as he is proposed by 27 democratically
elected governments and is then elected by the directly elected
representatives of the European Parliament and he is subsequently,
with his whole team, voted in as a College. It is clear through
that procedure the President of the European Commission has a
specific position and we welcome that very much. We think that
links very well with the role that the Commission has vis-a"-vis
the European Parliament generally. Generally, they are there in
the Treaty to control the Commission and to monitor what we do
and discuss with us on a continue basis in relation to all the
policy areas.
Q315 Lord Maclennan of Rogart:
Part of the requirement is that the Council pays attention to
the results of the election to the European Parliament in making
its nomination. How significant is that requirement?
Mr Nymand Christensen: It is quite significant.
I remember last time when President Barroso was nominated that
there was a debate, at least among a number of players, about
what the outcome of the European elections was and how that should
be interpreted in the sense of who should then be the European
Commission President. That is a completely legitimate debate to
be had. It is clear that the President sets the programming and
is responsible overall for the policy priorities of the European
Commission and, therefore, it is correct that there is a debate
about who should lead the Commission following direct elections
to the European Parliament. (The answer was continued off the
record)
Q316 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard:
I wanted to ask a question about the working of the Commission
post-2014, when it will come down in size. Many people think not
as far as it should come down in size, for efficiency. Efficiency
is a function of the number of people in the room and also the
calibre of the people. A second concern some people have is that
when the nationals of only two-thirds of the Member States are
there they will be chosen in rotation égale, equal
rotation. In other words, if you think the Commission should consist
of the best people for the jobs, you have to assume that a Luxembourger
or a Maltese is 250 times as likely to be the right person for
the job as a German because their rotation will be égale,
there will be a German in the Commission as often as a Maltese
and as rarely as a Maltese. Thirdly, given that some would say
that this is a little unfair, or possibly even a little undemocratic,
it might create a certain sensitivity, say, when the Germans,
the British or the French are not in the Commission. How do you
envisage arrangements will be made for dealing with the Member
States in the one-third not present in the Commission?
Mr Nymand Christensen: To be totally honest,
it will not come as a surprise to you that the Commission have
hardly begun that discussion. We have noticed that the Treaty
now foresees that there will be two-thirds the number of Commissioners
there are today from 2014. How we organise our contacts with the
one-third which are not in the College—I do not want to
use the word "represented" because that is misleading,
the Commissioners do not represent Malta or Germany, they are
representing European common interests but have been chosen from
that Member State—leads to a question that we need to answer
in a satisfactory manner as to how we establish contact of a different
nature than we have today with the, if it was today, nine Member
States that would not be in the College. We have no answer to
that question today but it is clear that from this Treaty hopefully
coming into force up until 2014 we need to answer that in a satisfactory
manner.
Q317 Lord Dykes:
Of course, the wider public have always found these internal structures
and arrangements quite complicated and difficult to follow and
there is no criticism in the various Member States for that because
it is complex for the practitioners outside and sometimes even
those who are inside.
Mr Nymand Christensen: I can assure you that
is the case.
Q318 Lord Dykes:
In Directorate E you have seen some of the changes in habits over
the years and that kind of thing. Subject to that, would there
be a tendency of the one-third to just cluster them round in terms
of human as well as country relationships with the two-thirds
who are Commissioners functioning so they keep in touch with them
so that there would not be much aggro about it and difficulty,
it would just be a practical matter of keeping in touch with the
ones who are there for that period?
Mr Nymand Christensen: I hesitate to speculate
about it because I have had some discussions with wise old men
in the Commission who have been dealing with these responsibilities
much longer and there are many ideas about it. It is important
to ensure that the Commission can execute and play its role fully
towards all Member States irrespective of whether there is a member
of the College from that Member State or not, and that the role
and the initiatives and decisions of the College are equally respected
whether one has that position or not. How we organise that is
important. In a way you are describing what we must avoid, that
the focus is on the 18 who are to be in and not the nine. The
task is to ensure that the nine Member States where there are
no Commissioners in the College must feel completely comfortable
with the situation and we must have some mechanisms in place and
some degree of transparency about it, but today I do not wish
to comment on it, it would not be appropriate for me, it is a
political decision. The Commission is fully aware of it.
Q319 Lord Dykes:
Coming back to the one area where transcending the national frontiers
is easier psychologically, and that is the European Parliament,
presumably that will accelerate to some extent because the powers
of the Parliament are being increased and so on. If you had to
talk to an audience of highly educated people in the Member States,
how would you postulate very briefly how a higher degree of politicisation
might occur with the new Commission President, with MEPs being
involved, and how that would pan out? Would it increase public
interest do you think? Is it possible that would be a sharp focus,
even getting into the newspapers occasionally, maybe not too often?
Mr Nymand Christensen: You come from a country
where the EU does appear in the media quite often I have noted.
| 
