The European Council was inaugurated as the supremo among the official EU institutions just two years ago, by the Lisbon Treaty. A cascade of meetings, both official ones and inofficial summits, has followed during the financial, sovereign debt and economic crises.
It may sound paradoxical, but my feeling is that the European Council has been gutted by the euro area crises and by design.
This blog post continues the discussion in the entry Transparency during the eurozone crises, based on my presentation at the 22 February 2012 Attac seminar, but with some modifications, updates and documentary references.
Eviscerated European Council?
Already, the latest statements from the informal summits for the EU as a whole, such as 26 October 2011, and the formal European Council conclusions, 23 october 2011 (EUCO 52/1/11) and 9 December 2011 (EUCO 139/1/11), look pretty anaemic.
It is as if the European Council had been eviscerated, emptied of content of late.
The spring meeting has traditionally been dedicated to all aspects of economic issues, but we have to wait to see what EUCO produces in terms of substance 1-2 March 2012 in the light of the EUCO annotated draft agenda (Council document 5354/12).
Summit or EU institution?
The first two years of the European Council as an official EU institution could be marked down as a lost opportunity with regard to openness and closeness to the citizen of the European Union.
In the beginning, EUCO president Herman Van Rompuy underlined that the European Council was an official institution, but in practice it continued to act as an international summit between leaders, without adopting practices of openness and good governance.
By this I mean in particular the preparatory phase from the Council configurations through the coordinating General Affairs Council (GAC), which has proved a real disappointment.
In order to illustrate the point, I ask you to look at the draft agenda of the GAC and the background note ahead of the 28 February 2012 meeting. Do we see clear proposals going in and can we expect the GAC to make public propositions to EUCO for public debate ahead of conclusions?
For comparison, we also have the customary annotated agenda from the government of Sweden: Allänna rådets möte den 28 februari 2012 – Kommenterad dagordning. Thin, is how I see it, instead of a clear paper trail from proposal to discussion, with public debate in between.
***
Perhaps some of us find it comforting to see that we citizens are in such noble company – at least in part with the heads of state or government of the non-euro states – watching more of real policy making disappear into the even bigger black hole of beefed-up Eurogroup support and the permanent Euro Summit.
Perhaps some of us are comfortable with the GAC and EUCO continuing to labour in the mode of diplomatic conferences, instead of as accountable and transparent institutions of European government and governance.
Perhaps we should not be. Yesterday, the Swedish economist Anders Bäckstrand wrote on Europaportalen that the euro crisis has started a process towards a more distinctly political Europe, but political legitimacy is necessary for this to succeed.
Ralf Grahn
speaker on EU affairs, especially digital policy and law
P.S. 1: For better or for worse, between the global issues and the national level, the European Union institutions and the eurozone coteries shape our future. At the same time we see a European public sphere emerging. More than 900 euroblogs are aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. Is your blog already listed among them? Are you following the debates which matter for your future?
P.S. 2: Referring the anti-piracy treaty #ACTA to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) marks a lull in the proceedings, but not an end to the political battle. A few moments ago, the online petition launched by @Avaaz for the European Parliament (and the national parliaments) to reject ACTA had already been signed by 2,427,119 netizens, but more are welcome until the official burial.
Today, Saturday 25 February 2012, European netizens join forces through more than 150 demonstrations for open and democratic legislation and Internet freedoms. In Finland Stop ACTA Helsinki convenes in front of the Central Railway Station at 14:00 hours.
Showing posts with label good governance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label good governance. Show all posts
Saturday, 25 February 2012
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
European Council: Economic policy reform priorities IV
We continue looking at the governance and practices of the most important official institution of the EU, the European Council, with regard to fiscal consolidation and structural reform.
Having studied the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) from the Commission in Part One, and EU 2020 macroeconomic and fiscal guidance offered by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) in Part Two, we turned to the contributions by the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) in Part Three, which dealt with employment, poverty and social exclusion.
It was possible to arrive this far in deciphering which priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform the European Council broadly endorsed (”In line with”), because someone was graceful enough to insert footnote 1 to paragraph 2, clumsily acknowledging the submerged parts of the iceberg:
Source:
European Council 24/25 March 2011 Conclusions; Brussels, 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11; 34 pages)
Hungarian synthesis report
The European Council did not exactly adopt (”See also”) the synthesis report from the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council, but it is well worth a closer look. Here the Hungarian presidency made a helpful contribution, by offering an overview and by including contributions from other Council configurations besides Ecofin and EPSCO.
There is, however, some ambiguity regarding the right version of the synthesis report and the differences between the various versions. The European Council footnote refers to a document dated 16 March, but if we search more diligently we find both a first revision, dated 16 March, and a second revised version, dated 18 March 2011.
The most obvious difference is that the two later papers are six pages shorter, but no explicit explanation is given in the introductory paragraph on the cover page:
Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 16 March 2011 (document 7745/11; 21 pages)
Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 16 March 2011 (document 7745/1/11 REV 1; 15 pages)
Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 18 March 2011 (document 7745/2/11 REV 2; 15 pages)
The shorter versions speak about an annexed Commission report about meetings with member states concerning their national reform programmes (NPR), but they fail to include the annex. The interesting Commission summary of discussions is found only in the original version.
Contents
As a rough indication of the contents of the synthesis report, I quote the introductory paragraph on the cover sheet (here from the original version, 7745/11):
The synthesis report is a clear exposition of the framework: the Integrated guidelines the EU and the member states are committed to, as well as the stages within the new planning cycle called the European Semester.
In addition to the Ecofin and EPSCO Council contributions (acknowledged by the European Council), the synthesis report summarised the contributions by the Competitiveness Council, the Education Council, the TTE Council (Energy) and the Environment Council, constantly reminding the readers of the commonly agreed Europe 2020 (EU2020) and other goals.
The report noted the difficulties in reaching the ambitious goals, mentioned the next steps and expected the spring European Council to give strategic guidance on policies. Each member state would take this guidance into account in its final Stability or Convergence Programme and National Reform Programme (NRP).
Although quite general in tone, the annexed Commission report highlighted questions of interest to the central administrations in the EU member states, including consistency between different processes and programmes, as well as to all ”stakeholders” (regions, local administrations, social partners) engaged in planning and implementing reform programmes.
Good work by the Hungarian presidency!
Submitted documents
Do we find the Hungarian synthesis report among the documents submitted to the European Council?
Nope. Only the annotated draft agenda and the provisional agenda are acknowledged, despite the multitude of submissions we have observed along our route.
Improving the European Council
Which priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform did the European Council endorse?
Without the fortunate use of a footnote, we would have been totally lost. We now know that the European Council is more or less in agreement with the conclusions of two Council meetings (”In line with”). It acknowledged the synthesis report from the Hungarian Council presidency as useful information, because it was worth mentioning.
Based on paragraph 2 and footnote 1 of the European Council conclusions, we have been able to unearth the relevant documents on our excavation tour extending to four blog posts.
***
What if the European Council became interested in good governance, better communication, openess and closeness to the citizen?
In my humble opinion, this would require a transparent chain of proposals and decisions.
Instead of continuing to hide non-public (Coreper, Van Rompuy) draft conclusions behind meaningless phrases, the General Affairs Council (GAC) could become an important coordinator and a promoter of improved public discussion ahead of European Council meetings, by tabling concrete proposals, based on Council conclusions.
To these, the European Council would reply seriously, at this stage without becoming a legislative body.
The GAC could also follow up the implementation of European Council decisions in an open manner, through public reports and transparent decisions.
Now the GAC potential is wasted by its self-effacing role, and the public is deprived of the opportunity for a better informed discussion about real issues, before and after European Council meetings.
Positive practices are possible: We saw that the EPSCO Council conclusions linked and gave references to documents in their final form, and they also acknowledged the authors. The Hungarian synthesis report is also worth notice. Kudos!
***
This still leaves us with a few problems relating to the current form of government through European Council conclusions.
Many documents of varying kinds are submitted to the European Council. It cannot pronounce on every paragraph or suggestion in the present format.
On the other hand, if the European Council wants to be known as a Delphic Oracle hovering above mere mortals, by replying to large and complex questions by a few paragraphs, the conclusions easily turn into meaningless commonplaces, serving few needs of guidance or enlightenment.
***
Having studied the submitted texts, how much wiser do we become, if we turn to what the economic spring summit of the European Council itself said about economic policy reform in its conclusions?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. On the bilingual (French and English) EU Weekly blog, the nuclear physicist and citizen blogger Greg Henning follows the euro currency and political events in France and the European Union. Recommended reading.
Having studied the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) from the Commission in Part One, and EU 2020 macroeconomic and fiscal guidance offered by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) in Part Two, we turned to the contributions by the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) in Part Three, which dealt with employment, poverty and social exclusion.
It was possible to arrive this far in deciphering which priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform the European Council broadly endorsed (”In line with”), because someone was graceful enough to insert footnote 1 to paragraph 2, clumsily acknowledging the submerged parts of the iceberg:
In line with the Council's conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the Commission's Annual Growth Survey. See also the Presidency's synthesis report of 16 March 2011.
Source:
European Council 24/25 March 2011 Conclusions; Brussels, 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11; 34 pages)
Hungarian synthesis report
The European Council did not exactly adopt (”See also”) the synthesis report from the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council, but it is well worth a closer look. Here the Hungarian presidency made a helpful contribution, by offering an overview and by including contributions from other Council configurations besides Ecofin and EPSCO.
There is, however, some ambiguity regarding the right version of the synthesis report and the differences between the various versions. The European Council footnote refers to a document dated 16 March, but if we search more diligently we find both a first revision, dated 16 March, and a second revised version, dated 18 March 2011.
The most obvious difference is that the two later papers are six pages shorter, but no explicit explanation is given in the introductory paragraph on the cover page:
Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 16 March 2011 (document 7745/11; 21 pages)
Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 16 March 2011 (document 7745/1/11 REV 1; 15 pages)
Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 18 March 2011 (document 7745/2/11 REV 2; 15 pages)
The shorter versions speak about an annexed Commission report about meetings with member states concerning their national reform programmes (NPR), but they fail to include the annex. The interesting Commission summary of discussions is found only in the original version.
Contents
As a rough indication of the contents of the synthesis report, I quote the introductory paragraph on the cover sheet (here from the original version, 7745/11):
Delegations will find attached the synthesis report prepared by the Presidency, summarising the discussions and the main political messages of the different Council formations in relation to the Annual Growth Survey, in the framework of the European Semester. The report together with the ECOFIN and EPSCO Council conclusions, will be submitted to the Spring European Council on 24/25 March 2011, which is expected to give guidance to the Member States for the finalisation of their Stability and Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes in April. This report is accompanied by a Commission report (see Annex) on the bilateral discussions with Member States carried out during February and March. The Hungarian Presidency’s aim is to close the first European Semester by the time of the European Council in June 2011.
The synthesis report is a clear exposition of the framework: the Integrated guidelines the EU and the member states are committed to, as well as the stages within the new planning cycle called the European Semester.
In addition to the Ecofin and EPSCO Council contributions (acknowledged by the European Council), the synthesis report summarised the contributions by the Competitiveness Council, the Education Council, the TTE Council (Energy) and the Environment Council, constantly reminding the readers of the commonly agreed Europe 2020 (EU2020) and other goals.
The report noted the difficulties in reaching the ambitious goals, mentioned the next steps and expected the spring European Council to give strategic guidance on policies. Each member state would take this guidance into account in its final Stability or Convergence Programme and National Reform Programme (NRP).
Although quite general in tone, the annexed Commission report highlighted questions of interest to the central administrations in the EU member states, including consistency between different processes and programmes, as well as to all ”stakeholders” (regions, local administrations, social partners) engaged in planning and implementing reform programmes.
Good work by the Hungarian presidency!
Submitted documents
Do we find the Hungarian synthesis report among the documents submitted to the European Council?
Nope. Only the annotated draft agenda and the provisional agenda are acknowledged, despite the multitude of submissions we have observed along our route.
Improving the European Council
Which priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform did the European Council endorse?
Without the fortunate use of a footnote, we would have been totally lost. We now know that the European Council is more or less in agreement with the conclusions of two Council meetings (”In line with”). It acknowledged the synthesis report from the Hungarian Council presidency as useful information, because it was worth mentioning.
Based on paragraph 2 and footnote 1 of the European Council conclusions, we have been able to unearth the relevant documents on our excavation tour extending to four blog posts.
***
What if the European Council became interested in good governance, better communication, openess and closeness to the citizen?
In my humble opinion, this would require a transparent chain of proposals and decisions.
Instead of continuing to hide non-public (Coreper, Van Rompuy) draft conclusions behind meaningless phrases, the General Affairs Council (GAC) could become an important coordinator and a promoter of improved public discussion ahead of European Council meetings, by tabling concrete proposals, based on Council conclusions.
To these, the European Council would reply seriously, at this stage without becoming a legislative body.
The GAC could also follow up the implementation of European Council decisions in an open manner, through public reports and transparent decisions.
Now the GAC potential is wasted by its self-effacing role, and the public is deprived of the opportunity for a better informed discussion about real issues, before and after European Council meetings.
Positive practices are possible: We saw that the EPSCO Council conclusions linked and gave references to documents in their final form, and they also acknowledged the authors. The Hungarian synthesis report is also worth notice. Kudos!
***
This still leaves us with a few problems relating to the current form of government through European Council conclusions.
Many documents of varying kinds are submitted to the European Council. It cannot pronounce on every paragraph or suggestion in the present format.
On the other hand, if the European Council wants to be known as a Delphic Oracle hovering above mere mortals, by replying to large and complex questions by a few paragraphs, the conclusions easily turn into meaningless commonplaces, serving few needs of guidance or enlightenment.
***
Having studied the submitted texts, how much wiser do we become, if we turn to what the economic spring summit of the European Council itself said about economic policy reform in its conclusions?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. On the bilingual (French and English) EU Weekly blog, the nuclear physicist and citizen blogger Greg Henning follows the euro currency and political events in France and the European Union. Recommended reading.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
European Council 17 June 2010: Van Rompuy’s chance to reform governance
The latest blog entry European Council 17 June 2010: Impetus needed on governance asked the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, to improve the standards of information and governance in the interest of citizens, transparency, good governance and democratic participation.
Is this just hopeless idealism in the best of all possible worlds?
Few people seem to mind, anyway.
Actually, few people seem to give a damn about what the heads of state or government are up to at the European Council.
(Not that they have been encouraged, I would say.)
The facts
Let us take a look at the facts, two days ahead of the 17 June 2010 European Council meeting. What advance information is available? You can then judge for yourself.
An annotated draft agenda, dated 7 May 2010, has been published (Council document 9533/10). A few headline issues are briefly mentioned.
There are no background notes since the 25 to 26 March 2010 Spring meeting.
No documents have (as it seems) been submitted to the June European Council, except the annotated draft agenda mentioned above.
Yesterday, the General Affairs Council (GAC) met in Luxembourg to prepare the European Council (document 11021/10). This is all the GAC had to say about the upcoming summit:
Comments
We notice that an annotated draft agenda with a different document number than above (and it is dated 4 May), but otherwise we are none the wiser.
The draft conclusions were and remain undisclosed.
No proposals have been published with reasons and underlying documents.
Without issues out in the open and clearly identified, how is informed advance public debate supposed to take place?
Van Rompuy’s chance to reform
According to Article 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Council, the president Herman Van Rompuy has the power to lead on the annotated draft agenda and the provisional agenda, as well as the issues (preparation and continuity).
This means that, with good will, Van Rompuy could establish more open, transparent and inviting practices by improving on past behaviour.
Even if the heads of state or government stopped short of rising to the standards of clear proposals and reasons as in other public bodies, agendas and background notes could be developed to name each issue individually, explain the context for each, as well as refer and link to the relevant proposals and reports in much greater detail than before.
Citizens, transparency, good governance and democratic participation would win.
Where are the drawbacks, if any?
Ralf Grahn
Is this just hopeless idealism in the best of all possible worlds?
Few people seem to mind, anyway.
Actually, few people seem to give a damn about what the heads of state or government are up to at the European Council.
(Not that they have been encouraged, I would say.)
The facts
Let us take a look at the facts, two days ahead of the 17 June 2010 European Council meeting. What advance information is available? You can then judge for yourself.
An annotated draft agenda, dated 7 May 2010, has been published (Council document 9533/10). A few headline issues are briefly mentioned.
There are no background notes since the 25 to 26 March 2010 Spring meeting.
No documents have (as it seems) been submitted to the June European Council, except the annotated draft agenda mentioned above.
Yesterday, the General Affairs Council (GAC) met in Luxembourg to prepare the European Council (document 11021/10). This is all the GAC had to say about the upcoming summit:
PREPARATION OF THE JUNE EUROPEAN COUNCIL
The Council examined draft conclusions for the European Council meeting to be held on 17 June, prepared by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, in cooperation with the Spanish presidency and the Commission.
Issues to be addressed by the European Council, as set out in an annotated draft agenda issued in May (doc. 9282/10), include:
– Jobs and growth: adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy;
– G-20: preparation of the Toronto summit;
– Development policy: UN millennium development goals;
– Climate change.
President Van Rompuy is also expected to present an interim report on the work of the task force on economic governance that he chairs, at the request of the European Council, and which has held its first two meetings.
The draft conclusions will be reviewed in the light of the Council's discussion.
Comments
We notice that an annotated draft agenda with a different document number than above (and it is dated 4 May), but otherwise we are none the wiser.
The draft conclusions were and remain undisclosed.
No proposals have been published with reasons and underlying documents.
Without issues out in the open and clearly identified, how is informed advance public debate supposed to take place?
Van Rompuy’s chance to reform
According to Article 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Council, the president Herman Van Rompuy has the power to lead on the annotated draft agenda and the provisional agenda, as well as the issues (preparation and continuity).
This means that, with good will, Van Rompuy could establish more open, transparent and inviting practices by improving on past behaviour.
Even if the heads of state or government stopped short of rising to the standards of clear proposals and reasons as in other public bodies, agendas and background notes could be developed to name each issue individually, explain the context for each, as well as refer and link to the relevant proposals and reports in much greater detail than before.
Citizens, transparency, good governance and democratic participation would win.
Where are the drawbacks, if any?
Ralf Grahn
European Council 17 June 2010: Impetus needed on governance
The previous blog entry, European Council 17 June 2010: Good governance?, wondered how good governance is within the grasp of municipal boards and councils, but seems to be unattainable for the European Union, and whether (European) Council’s execrable standards are a necessity, or if it would be possible to do more to enable informed debate and democratic participation.
How the European Council functions
The simple and transparent formula for public information is to publish each proposal with reasons and underlying documents. With issues out in the open and clearly identified, advance public debate, informed or uninformed, is made possible.
The European Council is an official institution, which makes a limited number of concrete decisions. Generally, it exercises power by providing “impetus” for the development of the European Union and defining general political directions and priorities of the EU. Most concrete decisions are taken by the Council (solely or as a co-legislator).
The European Council’s task of supreme guidance is traditionally exercised through conclusions, more or less clearly expressed utterances on major themes.
The often bland and bureaucratic statements from the European Council tend to obscure the fact that they are based on concrete proposals and detailed debates. In practice, the issues are decided in the European Council, at the latest, as the result of an opaque process.
Even if the concrete decision is taken later by the Council, the remaining formal decision is often just that – a formality.
This means that major parts of the process – input, gestation and real decision, output, formal decision – remains opaque.
Are improvements possible?
The current practices have not been designed with the interests of citizens, transparency, good governance or democratic participation in mind. When we study how these things work, it would probably be more correct to assume the opposite.
Is all for the best in the best of all possible worlds?
In my view, clear and detailed proposals leading to identifiable “decisions” are possible, if the European Council wants to raise its standards of governance and information, including the opportunities for informed advance debate. It is a question of political (good) will.
Only the European Council can reform itself, so “impetus”, directions and priorities are needed from the top, president Herman Van Rompuy.
Ralf Grahn
How the European Council functions
The simple and transparent formula for public information is to publish each proposal with reasons and underlying documents. With issues out in the open and clearly identified, advance public debate, informed or uninformed, is made possible.
The European Council is an official institution, which makes a limited number of concrete decisions. Generally, it exercises power by providing “impetus” for the development of the European Union and defining general political directions and priorities of the EU. Most concrete decisions are taken by the Council (solely or as a co-legislator).
The European Council’s task of supreme guidance is traditionally exercised through conclusions, more or less clearly expressed utterances on major themes.
The often bland and bureaucratic statements from the European Council tend to obscure the fact that they are based on concrete proposals and detailed debates. In practice, the issues are decided in the European Council, at the latest, as the result of an opaque process.
Even if the concrete decision is taken later by the Council, the remaining formal decision is often just that – a formality.
This means that major parts of the process – input, gestation and real decision, output, formal decision – remains opaque.
Are improvements possible?
The current practices have not been designed with the interests of citizens, transparency, good governance or democratic participation in mind. When we study how these things work, it would probably be more correct to assume the opposite.
Is all for the best in the best of all possible worlds?
In my view, clear and detailed proposals leading to identifiable “decisions” are possible, if the European Council wants to raise its standards of governance and information, including the opportunities for informed advance debate. It is a question of political (good) will.
Only the European Council can reform itself, so “impetus”, directions and priorities are needed from the top, president Herman Van Rompuy.
Ralf Grahn
European Council 17 June 2010: Good governance?
The European Council is, under the Lisbon Treaty, an official institution in a union with 500 million people. Actually, it is the most important institution, because of the “impetus” it gives or refuses to give the European Union.
In two days 27 heads of state or government and the president of the Commission meet under the chairmanship of the full time president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. The high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton, participates.
Preparations for the Summer European Council 17 June 2010 have been ongoing since the latest ordinary meeting, almost three months ago.
After the coordinating General Affairs Council yesterday, the president of the European Council drafts the provisional agenda.
Limelight or openness?
Yesterday, 14 June 2010 the General Affairs Council (GAC) prepared the European Council meeting.
The draft conclusions prepared before the GAC are not public. The changes agreed by the GAC are not public. The conclusions will only be made public after the fact, once they have been approved by the European Council. Perhaps it is part of human nature that the national leaders are inclined to steal the limelight.
However, the Lisbon Treaty “marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”. Every citizen has the right to participate in the democratic life of the union.
These ambitions collide, to the detriment of citizens.
The simple and transparent formula for public information is to publish each proposal with reasons and underlying documents. With issues out in the open, advance public debate, informed or uninformed, is made possible.
Thousands of local, regional and national public bodies all over Europe are able to communicate reasoned proposals every week for all to see.
On the contrary, the traditions of the European Council and the current practices of the Council do little to support the emergence of informed debate about the upcoming issues.
If good governance is not beyond municipal boards and councils, why is it unattainable for the European Union?
Are the (European) Council’s standards a necessity, or would it be possible to do more to enable informed debate and democratic participation?
Ralf Grahn
In two days 27 heads of state or government and the president of the Commission meet under the chairmanship of the full time president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. The high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton, participates.
Preparations for the Summer European Council 17 June 2010 have been ongoing since the latest ordinary meeting, almost three months ago.
After the coordinating General Affairs Council yesterday, the president of the European Council drafts the provisional agenda.
Limelight or openness?
Yesterday, 14 June 2010 the General Affairs Council (GAC) prepared the European Council meeting.
The draft conclusions prepared before the GAC are not public. The changes agreed by the GAC are not public. The conclusions will only be made public after the fact, once they have been approved by the European Council. Perhaps it is part of human nature that the national leaders are inclined to steal the limelight.
However, the Lisbon Treaty “marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”. Every citizen has the right to participate in the democratic life of the union.
These ambitions collide, to the detriment of citizens.
The simple and transparent formula for public information is to publish each proposal with reasons and underlying documents. With issues out in the open, advance public debate, informed or uninformed, is made possible.
Thousands of local, regional and national public bodies all over Europe are able to communicate reasoned proposals every week for all to see.
On the contrary, the traditions of the European Council and the current practices of the Council do little to support the emergence of informed debate about the upcoming issues.
If good governance is not beyond municipal boards and councils, why is it unattainable for the European Union?
Are the (European) Council’s standards a necessity, or would it be possible to do more to enable informed debate and democratic participation?
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 11 December 2009
Employment conditions: EU new top jobs
The Lisbon Treaty created the new top posts of the President of the European Council, the “double-hatted” High Representative and the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union.
Implementing the treaty required decisions on the pay and perks of the new office-holders.
The decisions concerning the conditions of employment have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
Lisbon Treaty
As always, we have to start with the Lisbon Treaty, in this case Article 243 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/155):
President of the European Council
Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the President of the European Council (2009/909/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/35.
Here is the substance of the decision:
High Representative
Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (2009/910/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/36.
This is what the decision tells us:
Secretary-General
Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union (2009/912/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/38.
The decision concerning the Secretary-General is lengthier:
Good governance?
From a bureaucratic point of view, it makes sense to tie in the new top jobs with existing ones. Once the salary and other emoluments have been pegged, they rise with the tide, without the need for separate decisions. This is an example of simplification.
If we include communication to the citizens of the European Union in the criteria of good public governance, these decisions are disasters.
On their own, the decisions are incomprehensible for the citizen. As far as I know, the Council has issued no explanatory information to bridge the gap.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Growing, multilingual Bloggingportal.eu now aggregates 494 euroblogs. Blogs on EU affairs and policies can gain visibility, credibility and readers by joining our common European “village well” for facts, opinion and gossip. Click on Contribute to propose a new blog.
Bloggingportal.eu is looking for voluntary editors to tag blog posts and to select the best to the Home page.
Implementing the treaty required decisions on the pay and perks of the new office-holders.
The decisions concerning the conditions of employment have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
Lisbon Treaty
As always, we have to start with the Lisbon Treaty, in this case Article 243 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/155):
Article 243 TFEU
(ex Article 210 TEC)
The Council shall determine the salaries, allowances and pensions of the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Members of the Commission, the Presidents, Members and Registrars of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the Secretary-General of the Council. It shall also determine any payment to be made instead of remuneration.
President of the European Council
Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the President of the European Council (2009/909/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/35.
Here is the substance of the decision:
Article 1
1. The provisions of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967 which apply to the President of the Commission shall apply by analogy to the President of the European Council.
2. The basic monthly salary of the President of the European Council shall be equal to the amount resulting from application of 138 % to the basic salary of an official of the European Union at grade 16 third step.
High Representative
Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (2009/910/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/36.
This is what the decision tells us:
Article 1
1. The provisions of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967 which apply to Members of the Commission, including those applicable to Vice-Presidents of the Commission, shall apply by analogy to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
2. By derogation from Article 2(1) of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967, the basic monthly salary of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall be equal to the amount resulting from application of 130 % to the basic salary of an official of the European Union at grade 16 third step.
Secretary-General
Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union (2009/912/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/38.
The decision concerning the Secretary-General is lengthier:
Article 1
The Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union shall receive a basic salary equivalent to that of an official of the European Union at grade 16 third step multiplied by 100 %. He or she shall receive the family allowances and other allowances provided for in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
He or she shall also be entitled to arrangements for the reimbursement of expenses and for social security fixed by analogy with those provided for in the Staff Regulations and Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall apply to him or her by analogy.
Article 2
The remuneration referred to in the first paragraph of Article 1 shall be subject to the weighting determined by the Council pursuant to Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for officials employed in Belgium.
Article 3
The Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union shall be entitled to a residence allowance fixed in accordance with Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2290/77 of 18 October 1977 determining the emoluments of the members of the Court of Auditors, and to pension arrangements and a transitional allowance in the case of termination of service fixed by analogy with those provided for in that Regulation.
Article 4
Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the European Communities shall apply to the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union.
Article 5
Except where otherwise stated in this Decision, Articles 11 to 14 and Article 17 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and all the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, with the exception of Article 52 thereof, shall apply to the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union.
Good governance?
From a bureaucratic point of view, it makes sense to tie in the new top jobs with existing ones. Once the salary and other emoluments have been pegged, they rise with the tide, without the need for separate decisions. This is an example of simplification.
If we include communication to the citizens of the European Union in the criteria of good public governance, these decisions are disasters.
On their own, the decisions are incomprehensible for the citizen. As far as I know, the Council has issued no explanatory information to bridge the gap.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Growing, multilingual Bloggingportal.eu now aggregates 494 euroblogs. Blogs on EU affairs and policies can gain visibility, credibility and readers by joining our common European “village well” for facts, opinion and gossip. Click on Contribute to propose a new blog.
Bloggingportal.eu is looking for voluntary editors to tag blog posts and to select the best to the Home page.
Saturday, 14 March 2009
UK FCO and Gibraltar: Responsive government?
Good governance, Government 2.0 and responsiveness may appear in politicians’ speeches, but how are things on the ground?
My two latest test cases concern the EU Treaty of Lisbon and the position of Gibraltar.
***
GIBRALTAR
Way back, I sent an e-mail to the Gibraltar government’s office in London asking if the Lisbon Treaty needs approval by Gibraltar (as indicated by the Wikipedia article on the treaty) and on the plans to deal with the question.
After a while I received a response telling me that the question had been referred to someone in the Gibraltar government, who would get back to me with an answer as soon as possible.
A few more weeks went by, so I decided to make a new enquiry. The only suitable contact address I found on the net was the Citizens’ Advice Bureau.
Three more weeks passed. I wrote a reminder to the Bureau, and this time I received a reply wondering how I hadn’t received their answer of 27 February 2009. Anyway, they gave me the advice to contact the local Ministry of Justice (something beyond their capacity?).
Well, I e-mailed my query to the Ministry of Justice of Gibraltar, but this time I decided to publish my observations after only one and a half working days:
Nada.
***
UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
On 18 February 2009 I sent the following question to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in London to the e-mail address specifically mentioned for questions Gibraltarian:
enquiry.gibraltar@fco.gov.uk
Sir / Madam,
I present the contents of the EU Treaty of Lisbon on my blog and I have followed the ratification procedures. The geographical scope - Article 355(3) and (4) TFEU - includes the Aland Islands and Gibraltar (additionally Declaration 55), but the Wikipedia article on the Lisbon Treaty reports that these territories with self-rule are to decide on the applicability in their territories.
The Wikipedia information is correct as to Aland, but I have failed to find information to confirm or deny that Gibraltar would need to approve the Lisbon Treaty.
Could you kindly fill me in on that?
In case Gibraltar will make a decision, I would be grateful for exact information, such as possible proposals, acts or memos on the matter, as well as an estimate of when a decision might be taken.
I thank you in acvance for your time and trouble.
Sincerely,
Ralf Grahn
***
Three weeks later, having received no answer I sent a reminder to the FCO at the same address, telling them that I would publish my findings.
Admittedly somewhat impatient by now, only one and a half working days later, this is it:
No reply.
***
I am still interested in the position of Gibraltar and its self-rule with regard to the Lisbon Treaty, so if someone is able to give me useful information, I am grateful.
But I am fascinated by the responsiveness of Her Majesty’s government (known for mislaying sensitive information which should be kept secret), but seemingly incapable of delivering timely answers to simple questions.
My special thanks go to the FCO and the government of Gibraltar for bringing this home.
The next time I hear some minister utter good governance, Government 2.0 or responsive, guess what my reaction is going to be?
I am going to check if we live on the same planet.
Ralf Grahn
My two latest test cases concern the EU Treaty of Lisbon and the position of Gibraltar.
***
GIBRALTAR
Way back, I sent an e-mail to the Gibraltar government’s office in London asking if the Lisbon Treaty needs approval by Gibraltar (as indicated by the Wikipedia article on the treaty) and on the plans to deal with the question.
After a while I received a response telling me that the question had been referred to someone in the Gibraltar government, who would get back to me with an answer as soon as possible.
A few more weeks went by, so I decided to make a new enquiry. The only suitable contact address I found on the net was the Citizens’ Advice Bureau.
Three more weeks passed. I wrote a reminder to the Bureau, and this time I received a reply wondering how I hadn’t received their answer of 27 February 2009. Anyway, they gave me the advice to contact the local Ministry of Justice (something beyond their capacity?).
Well, I e-mailed my query to the Ministry of Justice of Gibraltar, but this time I decided to publish my observations after only one and a half working days:
Nada.
***
UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
On 18 February 2009 I sent the following question to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in London to the e-mail address specifically mentioned for questions Gibraltarian:
enquiry.gibraltar@fco.gov.uk
Sir / Madam,
I present the contents of the EU Treaty of Lisbon on my blog and I have followed the ratification procedures. The geographical scope - Article 355(3) and (4) TFEU - includes the Aland Islands and Gibraltar (additionally Declaration 55), but the Wikipedia article on the Lisbon Treaty reports that these territories with self-rule are to decide on the applicability in their territories.
The Wikipedia information is correct as to Aland, but I have failed to find information to confirm or deny that Gibraltar would need to approve the Lisbon Treaty.
Could you kindly fill me in on that?
In case Gibraltar will make a decision, I would be grateful for exact information, such as possible proposals, acts or memos on the matter, as well as an estimate of when a decision might be taken.
I thank you in acvance for your time and trouble.
Sincerely,
Ralf Grahn
***
Three weeks later, having received no answer I sent a reminder to the FCO at the same address, telling them that I would publish my findings.
Admittedly somewhat impatient by now, only one and a half working days later, this is it:
No reply.
***
I am still interested in the position of Gibraltar and its self-rule with regard to the Lisbon Treaty, so if someone is able to give me useful information, I am grateful.
But I am fascinated by the responsiveness of Her Majesty’s government (known for mislaying sensitive information which should be kept secret), but seemingly incapable of delivering timely answers to simple questions.
My special thanks go to the FCO and the government of Gibraltar for bringing this home.
The next time I hear some minister utter good governance, Government 2.0 or responsive, guess what my reaction is going to be?
I am going to check if we live on the same planet.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
