The Parliament prepares for its increased powers under the Lisbon Treaty

17 Nov 2009

Kevin Leydon

The Parliament prepares for its increased powers under the Lisbon Treaty.

For many months the Parliament had grown increasingly impatient with the non ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The positive result of the Irish referendum whetted the appetite further in preparing for implementation only to be frustrated by the Czech President’s request for an opt out from the Charter of Human Rights. Finally there is agreement that the Treaty will enter into force by the end of the year. In the meantime Parliament has been setting out its stalls on a number of important areas including budgetary matters, an increase in the number of members of Parliament, developments in the domains of Justice, Freedom and Security and in the creation of the External Action Service.

On Tuesday 6 October the Constitutional Affairs Committee held an exchange of views on the draft report by Elmar Brok on the institutional aspects of setting up the European External Action Service (EEAS) and agreed to send its report for debate in plenary on the 21st October. This parliamentary debate was paralleled by work in the Council at Ambassadorial level for submission to the European Council on the 29th October for a Swedish Presidency report on the future of the External service.

The vote taken on the 12th November, following a parliamentary debate in which the Commission and Council Presidency presented their positions in the plenary session of the 21st October, was 424 votes in favour, 94 against and 30 abstentions of the report tabled by Elmar Brok. This vote reflected a clear division between the centrist parties and the far left and right parties with the majority of the Parliament supporting the Brok report whilst MEPs from the GUE/NGL, ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists) and EFD (Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group) seeing the new service as a threat to national sovereignty. 

The Swedish Presidency presented the main recommendations going to the European Council. The Commission contributed its position on the organisation of the External service.

The Debate.

Opening the debate for the Parliament.

The Rapporteur argued in favour of setting up the EEAS as it would ensure that the EU would speak with a united and stronger voice on external affairs. He called on members to support the community method and that the EEAS should be placed under the Commission. This would have the consequence that, via the budgetary procedure, the Parliament would be able to wield significant influence over the policies of the EEAS. He reminded the Council to respect the procedure for setting up the EEAS whereby the Parliament should be consulted and the Commission had to approve the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission's proposal. Brok recognised that the EEAS needed special rules to reflect the fact that in those areas where the Council had sole competency the Commission should not have the right to block the action but merely the task of implementing decisions. He rejected the idea of some member states that the service should remain equidistant from both the Council and the Commission.

The Swedish Presidency outlined the Council’s perspective.

The Minister recalled that the key idea for setting up the EEAS was to bridge the gap of the work done in the Council and Commission in the foreign policy field. She noted that the European Council would agree on a report which the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission would take as his basis for drafting his own proposal for setting up the EEAS. The Presidency committed itself to keeping the Parliament informed of developments. Outlining elements of the Presidency paper Minister Malström noted that the geographic and thematic desks within the Commission and Council would be unified under the EEAS. On staffing the Minister noted that officials would come from the Commission and Council services and the Member States. All these officials would be able to take up posts in all parts of the EEAS. She noted that a unit within the EEAS would be set up to deal with relations with the European Parliament. Subsequently on the 30th October the European Council endorsed the Presidency's report on the guidelines and invited the future High Representative to present a proposal for the organisation and functioning of the EEAS as soon as possible after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with a view to its adoption by the Council at the latest by the end of April 2010.  

The Commission set out its position.

The Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner welcomed the report of the European Parliament. Importantly she reminded members that the status of the EEAS would be sui generis in nature and therefore there was no model to be followed. The service needed to carry authority as the core of EU external policy, the place where policy was developed and coordinated and it had to work closely with other institutions respecting the institutional balance.

 The Commissioner thought that the creation of the EEAS would require a variety of decisions, probably including changes to the Financial Regulation and the Staff Regulations, both of which required a Commission proposal and adoption through co-decision. As for the scope of the service, Ferrero-Waldner repeated that the EEAS would unite all thematic (e.g. CFSP and CSDP, human rights and relations with UN bodies) and geographical desks. The aim was to prevent duplication and to ensure that all those responsible for delivering EU external policy worked effectively together. The Commission would continue to have services responsible for trade, development policy, aid implementation, humanitarian aid and enlargement. It would also continue to drive the external aspects of the Union’s internal policies. A central question in the current debate was how to manage the programming of external assistance. Ferrero-Waldner emphasised that the EU's development policy would remain a central part of the Commission's external activities.

 The Council is minded to follow its own interest leaving it to the Commission and Parliament to implement the secondary legislation. While the headlines are set by the Council the devil is in the detail and we can expect a lively legislative process!

 

As an independent forum, the Institute does not express any opinions of its own. The views expressed in the article are the sole responsibility of the author.