The European Council has been tardy in preparing for the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, so I decided to lend them a helping hand by publishing this job advertisement (at no expense to the EU).
***
Senior EU positions
Subject to the ratification and entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council is hiring highly qualified individuals for the following posts:
• President of the European Council, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. Relevant experience: Prime Minister or comparable.
• High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission. Relevant experience: Foreign Minister or comparable.
To check the general job description and your eligibility, be a sport and read the Treaty of Lisbon (at least the relevant Articles).
Detailed responsibilities, authority, staff, salary and fringe benefits have yet to be worked out by your employers, 27 member states governments of the European Union, but understand that this is not a football transfer.
General profile
The European Council attaches particular importance to candidates' ability to grasp problems that are often complex and varied in nature, to react rapidly to changing circumstances, and to communicate effectively. Candidates are expected to show initiative and imagination and to be highly motivated. They should be able to work both independently and in a team and should be able to adjust to a multicultural working environment. They will also be expected to develop their professional skills throughout their career. Recruitment aims to secure for the European Council the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the
broadest possible geographical basis from among the citizens of the Member States of the European Union. [Adapted from the European Personnel Selection Office’s General rules governing open competitions; OJEU 26.2.2009 C 47 A/1]
When appointing the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission (almost sealed) and the High Representative, due account is taken of the need to respect the geographical and demographic diversity of the EU and its member states. [See Lisbon Treaty Declaration 6.]
If you are unsure about if political affinities and gender are seen as geographical or demographic diversity factors, or if you have other questions, the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Union is available for discreet inquiries from 1 July 2009.
Citizens of the European Union are requested not to meddle in the selection process, but are anyway to be ignored.
***
Is this your next career move?
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label selection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label selection. Show all posts
Sunday, 14 June 2009
Monday, 23 March 2009
Lisbon Treaty & European Council: “Presidential elections”
The Treaty of Lisbon would endow the European Union with a new office-holder: the President of the European Council.
The new President would be elected by the European Council, by a qualified majority.
The President’s term in office would be two and a half years, renewable once.
The relevant provision is Article 15(5) of the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), published in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/23:
Article 15(5) TEU
5. 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 the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.
***
Declaration 6
In Declaration 6 the heads of state or government (intergovernmental conference) agreed on the following guidance for the election of the President of the European Council (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/338):
6. Declaration on Article 15(5) and (6), Article 17(6) and (7) and Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union
In choosing the persons called upon to hold the offices of President of the European Council, President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, due account is to be taken of the need to respect the geographical and demographic diversity of the Union and its Member States.
***
Development of Council Presidency
In The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations (joint study by CEPS, EGMONT and EPC, November 2007), the chapter The Presidency of the Council: The paradox of the new presidency (from page 39) paints a background picture of how the Council Presidency has evolved, and presents an analysis of weaknesses of and the requirements for the potential success of the proposed system.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council Presidency will be split up into no less than five different and somewhat unconnected levels of responsibility namely (page 46):
(1) the President of the European Council,
(2) the group of three Member States in the eighteen-month Presidency Team,
(3) the Member State in the team holding the six-month Presidency,
(4) the High Representative for foreign policy, President of the Foreign Aff airs Council, and
(5) the President of the euro group.
***
Pros and cons
Another discussion of the pros and cons of the permanent President of the European Council is presented in the UK House of Lords report The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report (HL Paper 62-I, 13 March 2008), from page 41.
The witnesses presented quite different views on how difficult the coordination between the President of the Commission, the President of the European Council, the High Representative and the member state holding the rotating Council Presidency would turn out to be.
Conclusion 4.34 acknowledged the significance of the post and the disputed role of the President of the European Council (page 48):
“The creation of a full-time European Council President, in place of a six-monthly rotation among heads of government, is a significant move, and is likely to make the European Council more effective at creating direction and action. This could mean a more active/activist European Council—a consequence which would be welcomed in some quarters but not in others.”
***
European elections
In Think global, act European (published by Notre Europe), thirteen European think tanks gave their views to the upcoming trio, the EU Council Presidencies of France, the Czech Republic and Sweden, against the background of the planned entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Gaëtane Ricard-Nihoul and Elvire Fabry advised against including the President of the Commission in a crude package deal within the European Council (page 19):
“The troika must also take care to ensure that the European Council does not agree to any upstream intergovernmental deal concerning the nominations of the Council president, the Commission president and the High Representative. The appointment of the new President of the Commission should depend upon the outcome of the European elections of June 2009. More than ever these elections need a genuine political agenda in order to mobilise voters, since turnout has been declining since 1979.”
***
Interinstitutional agreement
The thirteen think-tanks made further recommendations on the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. The trio of Council Presidencies should negotiate an interinstitutional agreement with the Commission and the European Parliament (page 25):
“To negotiate with the Commission and the European Parliament a sort of “code of conduct” (Europeum), an inter-institutional agreement to define the principles that should prevail not just in the choice of individuals to fill key posts, but also in the way these new functions will be incorporated into the existing institutional framework (impact on COREPER, working groups, rotating Presidencies, role of the General Affairs Council, conciliation of co-decision, etc.) (SIEPS, DemosEuropa).”
***
Selection of President
The think tanks made the following recommendation for the selection of the President of the European Council (page 26):
“To select a President of the European Council who does not become, in any form whatsoever, a rival to the President of the European Commission. The Council President should be a prominent European figure respected by all member states, capable of having authority vis-à-vis the exterior and, at the same time, of building a consensus within the community. This implies someone from the heart of the current European integration process, that is from a member of the euro-zone and of the Schengen Agreement (CEPS, Eliamep, Notre Europe).”
***
Interinstitutional relations
The post of the President of the Commission and the new posts of President of the European Council and the double-hatted High Representative are linked, as shown by Declaration 6 (above). It is possible that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty coincides more or less exactly with the start of the next Commission’s term of office, and the Treaty of Lisbon creates the two other posts.
On 9 March 2009 the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) of the European Parliament voted on the draft report by Jean-Luc Dehaene on the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on the development of the institutional balance of the European Union (2008/2073(INI)).
The AFCO report proposes a procedure and a timetable for the nominations, with a wish to see them applied already after the June 2009 European elections:
“42. In this context, proposes as a possible model the following procedure and timetable for the nominations, which could be agreed by the European Parliament and the European Council:
– weeks 1 and 2 after the European elections: installation of the political groups in the European Parliament;
– week 3 after the elections: consultations between the President of the European Council and the President of the European Parliament, followed by separate meetings between the President of the European Council and the Presidents of the political groups (possibly also with the Presidents of the European political families or restricted delegations);
– week 4 after the elections: indication by the European Council, taking into account the results of the consultations mentioned in the previous indent, of the candidate for President of the Commission;
– weeks 5 and 6 after the elections: contacts between the candidate for President of the Commission and the political groups; statements by that candidate and presentation of his/her political guidelines to the European Parliament; vote in the European Parliament on the candidate for President of the Commission;
– July/August/September: the elected President of the Commission agrees with the European Council on the nomination of the High Representative and proposes the list of Commissioners-designate (including the High Representative/Vice-President);
– September: the European Council adopts the list of Commissioners-designate (including the High Representative/Vice-President);
– September/October: hearings of the Commissioners-designate and of the High Representative/Vice-President-designate by the European Parliament;
– October: presentation of the college of Commissioners and their programme to the European Parliament; vote on the entire college (including the High Representative/Vice-President); the European Council approves the new Commission; the new Commission takes up its duties;
– November: the European Council nominates the President of the European Council;
***
EP President
Against the background of the link between the posts and the Deahaene report, at the spring European Council the President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering spoke about the nomination and the election of the next President of the Commission, but with implications for the whole “package”:
“What we need in this difficult situation is a clear timetable. On 14 July the newly-elected European Parliament will hold its constitutative part-session.
No matter what, we want that the election of the President of the Commission takes place on 15 July 2009. This election must reflect the outcome of the European elections. For this to happen, consultations between the Council Presidency and the European Parliament will be necessary.
This consultation procedure need not be exclusively related to the choice of person for Commission President, but must also include upcoming legal, political and personnel questions.
Parliament would be willing to conduct them after the elections and before the June meeting of the European Council. We must also make arrangements to ensure that the new Commission can still take office this year.”
***
Reflections
Instead of a European Union based on representative democracy, with a directly elected European Parliament and a politically accountable executive built on the existing Commission, the leaders of the member states have opted for the strengthening of the intergovernmental European Council, where they direct union affairs.
A permanent President of the European Council serves this interest by bringing continuity to the post and by full-time employment.
As an internal choice of the European Council, without direct input from the EU’s citizens or the other institutions, the new President has little democratic legitimacy. He or she is selected behind closed doors by an electoral college of 27. These are “Presidential elections” European style.
Against this background, the President of the European Council is not and cannot be the President of Europe. Possibly, the new position will sow confusion outside and create complications inside.
If the six month rotating presidency is felt to be inadequate for the European Council, the post could be merged with the post of the President of the Commission, which would give it a modicum of democratic legitimacy at the current stage of development, as well as continuity. This has been proposed by the WhoDoICall.eu campaign.
A future directly elected President of the European Council, as some have speculated, would in my opinion be a wrong turn, leading to a presidential system alien to most of the EU member states, with the notable exception of France. The vast majority of the member states are parliamentary democracies, and there is reason to simplify the structures at EU level, not to add complications.
In the long run, if the European project is to survive and prosper, it has to be re-founded on its citizens, with a democratically legitimate government.
Ralf Grahn
The new President would be elected by the European Council, by a qualified majority.
The President’s term in office would be two and a half years, renewable once.
The relevant provision is Article 15(5) of the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), published in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/23:
Article 15(5) TEU
5. 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 the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.
***
Declaration 6
In Declaration 6 the heads of state or government (intergovernmental conference) agreed on the following guidance for the election of the President of the European Council (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/338):
6. Declaration on Article 15(5) and (6), Article 17(6) and (7) and Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union
In choosing the persons called upon to hold the offices of President of the European Council, President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, due account is to be taken of the need to respect the geographical and demographic diversity of the Union and its Member States.
***
Development of Council Presidency
In The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations (joint study by CEPS, EGMONT and EPC, November 2007), the chapter The Presidency of the Council: The paradox of the new presidency (from page 39) paints a background picture of how the Council Presidency has evolved, and presents an analysis of weaknesses of and the requirements for the potential success of the proposed system.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council Presidency will be split up into no less than five different and somewhat unconnected levels of responsibility namely (page 46):
(1) the President of the European Council,
(2) the group of three Member States in the eighteen-month Presidency Team,
(3) the Member State in the team holding the six-month Presidency,
(4) the High Representative for foreign policy, President of the Foreign Aff airs Council, and
(5) the President of the euro group.
***
Pros and cons
Another discussion of the pros and cons of the permanent President of the European Council is presented in the UK House of Lords report The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report (HL Paper 62-I, 13 March 2008), from page 41.
The witnesses presented quite different views on how difficult the coordination between the President of the Commission, the President of the European Council, the High Representative and the member state holding the rotating Council Presidency would turn out to be.
Conclusion 4.34 acknowledged the significance of the post and the disputed role of the President of the European Council (page 48):
“The creation of a full-time European Council President, in place of a six-monthly rotation among heads of government, is a significant move, and is likely to make the European Council more effective at creating direction and action. This could mean a more active/activist European Council—a consequence which would be welcomed in some quarters but not in others.”
***
European elections
In Think global, act European (published by Notre Europe), thirteen European think tanks gave their views to the upcoming trio, the EU Council Presidencies of France, the Czech Republic and Sweden, against the background of the planned entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Gaëtane Ricard-Nihoul and Elvire Fabry advised against including the President of the Commission in a crude package deal within the European Council (page 19):
“The troika must also take care to ensure that the European Council does not agree to any upstream intergovernmental deal concerning the nominations of the Council president, the Commission president and the High Representative. The appointment of the new President of the Commission should depend upon the outcome of the European elections of June 2009. More than ever these elections need a genuine political agenda in order to mobilise voters, since turnout has been declining since 1979.”
***
Interinstitutional agreement
The thirteen think-tanks made further recommendations on the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. The trio of Council Presidencies should negotiate an interinstitutional agreement with the Commission and the European Parliament (page 25):
“To negotiate with the Commission and the European Parliament a sort of “code of conduct” (Europeum), an inter-institutional agreement to define the principles that should prevail not just in the choice of individuals to fill key posts, but also in the way these new functions will be incorporated into the existing institutional framework (impact on COREPER, working groups, rotating Presidencies, role of the General Affairs Council, conciliation of co-decision, etc.) (SIEPS, DemosEuropa).”
***
Selection of President
The think tanks made the following recommendation for the selection of the President of the European Council (page 26):
“To select a President of the European Council who does not become, in any form whatsoever, a rival to the President of the European Commission. The Council President should be a prominent European figure respected by all member states, capable of having authority vis-à-vis the exterior and, at the same time, of building a consensus within the community. This implies someone from the heart of the current European integration process, that is from a member of the euro-zone and of the Schengen Agreement (CEPS, Eliamep, Notre Europe).”
***
Interinstitutional relations
The post of the President of the Commission and the new posts of President of the European Council and the double-hatted High Representative are linked, as shown by Declaration 6 (above). It is possible that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty coincides more or less exactly with the start of the next Commission’s term of office, and the Treaty of Lisbon creates the two other posts.
On 9 March 2009 the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) of the European Parliament voted on the draft report by Jean-Luc Dehaene on the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on the development of the institutional balance of the European Union (2008/2073(INI)).
The AFCO report proposes a procedure and a timetable for the nominations, with a wish to see them applied already after the June 2009 European elections:
“42. In this context, proposes as a possible model the following procedure and timetable for the nominations, which could be agreed by the European Parliament and the European Council:
– weeks 1 and 2 after the European elections: installation of the political groups in the European Parliament;
– week 3 after the elections: consultations between the President of the European Council and the President of the European Parliament, followed by separate meetings between the President of the European Council and the Presidents of the political groups (possibly also with the Presidents of the European political families or restricted delegations);
– week 4 after the elections: indication by the European Council, taking into account the results of the consultations mentioned in the previous indent, of the candidate for President of the Commission;
– weeks 5 and 6 after the elections: contacts between the candidate for President of the Commission and the political groups; statements by that candidate and presentation of his/her political guidelines to the European Parliament; vote in the European Parliament on the candidate for President of the Commission;
– July/August/September: the elected President of the Commission agrees with the European Council on the nomination of the High Representative and proposes the list of Commissioners-designate (including the High Representative/Vice-President);
– September: the European Council adopts the list of Commissioners-designate (including the High Representative/Vice-President);
– September/October: hearings of the Commissioners-designate and of the High Representative/Vice-President-designate by the European Parliament;
– October: presentation of the college of Commissioners and their programme to the European Parliament; vote on the entire college (including the High Representative/Vice-President); the European Council approves the new Commission; the new Commission takes up its duties;
– November: the European Council nominates the President of the European Council;
***
EP President
Against the background of the link between the posts and the Deahaene report, at the spring European Council the President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering spoke about the nomination and the election of the next President of the Commission, but with implications for the whole “package”:
“What we need in this difficult situation is a clear timetable. On 14 July the newly-elected European Parliament will hold its constitutative part-session.
No matter what, we want that the election of the President of the Commission takes place on 15 July 2009. This election must reflect the outcome of the European elections. For this to happen, consultations between the Council Presidency and the European Parliament will be necessary.
This consultation procedure need not be exclusively related to the choice of person for Commission President, but must also include upcoming legal, political and personnel questions.
Parliament would be willing to conduct them after the elections and before the June meeting of the European Council. We must also make arrangements to ensure that the new Commission can still take office this year.”
***
Reflections
Instead of a European Union based on representative democracy, with a directly elected European Parliament and a politically accountable executive built on the existing Commission, the leaders of the member states have opted for the strengthening of the intergovernmental European Council, where they direct union affairs.
A permanent President of the European Council serves this interest by bringing continuity to the post and by full-time employment.
As an internal choice of the European Council, without direct input from the EU’s citizens or the other institutions, the new President has little democratic legitimacy. He or she is selected behind closed doors by an electoral college of 27. These are “Presidential elections” European style.
Against this background, the President of the European Council is not and cannot be the President of Europe. Possibly, the new position will sow confusion outside and create complications inside.
If the six month rotating presidency is felt to be inadequate for the European Council, the post could be merged with the post of the President of the Commission, which would give it a modicum of democratic legitimacy at the current stage of development, as well as continuity. This has been proposed by the WhoDoICall.eu campaign.
A future directly elected President of the European Council, as some have speculated, would in my opinion be a wrong turn, leading to a presidential system alien to most of the EU member states, with the notable exception of France. The vast majority of the member states are parliamentary democracies, and there is reason to simplify the structures at EU level, not to add complications.
In the long run, if the European project is to survive and prosper, it has to be re-founded on its citizens, with a democratically legitimate government.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 13 January 2008
EU Treaty of Lisbon: CFSP implementation
Can the European Union speak with ‘one voice’ in the world? The Reform Treaty brings about considerable improvement, if the EU is able to make up its mind. Preparation, representation and implementation are all enhanced through the renewed office of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by the European External Action Service to be established.
The long overdue reforms of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and of the common security and defence policy (CSDP) can lead to improved security and prosperity for the citizens of the Union, but the institutional arrangements lack openness, transparency and democratic accountability.
***
The existing Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU; latest consolidation OJ 29.12.2006 C 321) says:
“Article 18
1. The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy.
2. The Presidency shall be responsible for the implementation of decisions taken under this title; in that capacity it shall in principle express the position of the Union in international organisations and international conferences.
3. The Presidency shall be assisted by the Secretary-General of the Council who shall exercise the function of High Representative for the common foreign and security policy.
4. The Commission shall be fully associated in the tasks referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The Presidency shall be assisted in those tasks if need be by the next Member State to hold the Presidency.
5. The Council may, whenever it deems it necessary, appoint a special representative with a mandate in relation to particular policy issues.”
Article 26 TEU in force says:
“Article 26
The Secretary-General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, shall assist the Council in matters coming within the scope of the common foreign and security policy, in particular through contributing to the formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions, and, when appropriate and acting on behalf of the Council at the request of the Presidency, through conducting political dialogue with third parties.”
***
The broadly based Convention proposed a clear upgrading of the conduct foreign policy and the representation of the European Union by creating the office of a Union Minister for Foreign Affairs; draft Constitutional Treaty Article III-197 (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169):
“Article III-197
1. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, who shall chair the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, shall contribute through his or her proposals towards the preparation of the common foreign and security policy and shall ensure implementation of the European decisions adopted by the European Council and the Council of Ministers.
2. For matters relating to the common foreign and security policy, the Union shall be represented by the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. He or she shall conduct political dialogue on the Union’s behalf and shall express the Union’s position in international organisations and at international conferences.
3. In fulfilling his or her mandate, the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. The service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States.”
(Article III-197(3) referred to the Declaration on the creation of a European External Action Service.)
***
The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310) Article III-296 took over Article III-197(1), slightly altered the wording of paragraph 2 and added words on the European External Action Service (originating in the Declaration proposed by the Convention). The resulting Article III-296(3):
“Article III-296(3)
3. In fulfilling his or her mandate, the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. This service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States and shall comprise officials from the relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic services of the Member States. The organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service shall be established by a European decision of the Council. The Council shall act on a proposal from the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs after consulting the European Parliament and after obtaining the consent of the Commission. “
***
The IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07, point 1) abandoned the constitutional concept and (point 3) stated that the “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” will be called High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
In addition to the reverting to the “High Representative”, there are only minor changes to the wording of the Constitutional Treaty in the Lisbon Treaty.
***
Some remarks by your glossator:
There is to be no Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, but the substance of the innovations proposed by the Convention is maintained in the renewed office of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
The High Representative is going to chair the Foreign Affairs Council, to lead the external action of the European Commission and to lead the European External Action Service, which will combine resources of the Council Secretariat, the Commission and seconded officials from national diplomatic services.
The High Representative is going to prepare proposals for the Foreign Affairs Council and to implement its decisions. He is going to represent the EU in international organisations and at international conferences. EU accession to and representation in international organisations could do much to give the Union a stronger voice in world affairs.
One could say that the ‘double-hatted’ High Representative/Vice-President acts before, during and after. Internal coordination is improved and the chances for consistent policies enhanced. These innovations translate into more security and prosperity for citizens of the European Union.
Cumbersome decision making and the temptation for Member States to fly solo, including national representation in the Security Council of the United Nations, detract from the possibilities for concerted European action on the world stage.
Openness, transparency and democratic accountability at the EU level remain underdeveloped concerning the CFSP and the CSDP.
Our common challenges have moved ‘upstairs’, and the institutional arrangements mount a few steps, but the elected representatives of the citizens (EP) are left on the ground floor.
The Lisbon Treaty cannot remain the last word on institutional reform.
The selection processes for the President of the European Council and the High Representative/Vice-President are going to highly informative as to the ‘state of the Union’ concerning openness, transparency and accountability. Will we citizens know who the candidates are, will they campaign openly, and how are their merits going to be weighed and debated? Or are we supposed to stand by idly, waiting for white smoke to rise from the Conclave?
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2006 C 306) inserts an Article 13a TEU.
Article 13a
1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who shall chair the Foreign Affairs Council, shall contribute through his proposals towards the preparation of the common foreign and security policy and shall ensure implementation of the decisions adopted by the European Council and the Council.
2. The High Representative shall represent the Union for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy. He shall conduct political dialogue with third parties on the Union's behalf and shall express the Union's position in international organisations and at international conferences.
3. In fulfilling his mandate, the High Representative shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. This service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States and shall comprise officials from relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic services of the Member States. The organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service shall be established by a decision of the Council. The Council shall act on a proposal from the High Representative after consulting the European Parliament and after obtaining the consent of the Commission.
***
A long time has already passed since the proposals of the Convention. The Member States have agreed to start preparations for the European External Action Service. Declaration (number 15) on Article 13a of the Treaty on European Union states:
“The Conference declares that, as soon as the Treaty of Lisbon is signed, the Secretary-General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, the Commission and the Member States should begin preparatory work on the European External Action Service.”
(The Constitutional Treaty contained a corresponding declaration.)
***
If the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty is delayed, the Member States have agreed on guidelines for the transition.
The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) approved a Declaration (number 8) on practical measures to be taken upon the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon as regards the Presidency of the European Council and the Foreign Affairs Council:
“In the event that the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force later than 1 January 2009, the Conference requests the competent authorities of the Member State holding the six-monthly Presidency of the Council at that time, on the one hand, and the person elected President of the European Council and the person appointed High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, on the other hand, to take the necessary specific measures, in consultation with the following six-monthly Presidency, to allow an efficient handover of the material and organisational aspects of the Presidency of the European Council and of the Foreign Affairs Council.”
***
Next time we look at CFSP decisions.
Ralf Grahn
The long overdue reforms of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and of the common security and defence policy (CSDP) can lead to improved security and prosperity for the citizens of the Union, but the institutional arrangements lack openness, transparency and democratic accountability.
***
The existing Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU; latest consolidation OJ 29.12.2006 C 321) says:
“Article 18
1. The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy.
2. The Presidency shall be responsible for the implementation of decisions taken under this title; in that capacity it shall in principle express the position of the Union in international organisations and international conferences.
3. The Presidency shall be assisted by the Secretary-General of the Council who shall exercise the function of High Representative for the common foreign and security policy.
4. The Commission shall be fully associated in the tasks referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The Presidency shall be assisted in those tasks if need be by the next Member State to hold the Presidency.
5. The Council may, whenever it deems it necessary, appoint a special representative with a mandate in relation to particular policy issues.”
Article 26 TEU in force says:
“Article 26
The Secretary-General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, shall assist the Council in matters coming within the scope of the common foreign and security policy, in particular through contributing to the formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions, and, when appropriate and acting on behalf of the Council at the request of the Presidency, through conducting political dialogue with third parties.”
***
The broadly based Convention proposed a clear upgrading of the conduct foreign policy and the representation of the European Union by creating the office of a Union Minister for Foreign Affairs; draft Constitutional Treaty Article III-197 (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169):
“Article III-197
1. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, who shall chair the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, shall contribute through his or her proposals towards the preparation of the common foreign and security policy and shall ensure implementation of the European decisions adopted by the European Council and the Council of Ministers.
2. For matters relating to the common foreign and security policy, the Union shall be represented by the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. He or she shall conduct political dialogue on the Union’s behalf and shall express the Union’s position in international organisations and at international conferences.
3. In fulfilling his or her mandate, the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. The service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States.”
(Article III-197(3) referred to the Declaration on the creation of a European External Action Service.)
***
The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310) Article III-296 took over Article III-197(1), slightly altered the wording of paragraph 2 and added words on the European External Action Service (originating in the Declaration proposed by the Convention). The resulting Article III-296(3):
“Article III-296(3)
3. In fulfilling his or her mandate, the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. This service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States and shall comprise officials from the relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic services of the Member States. The organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service shall be established by a European decision of the Council. The Council shall act on a proposal from the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs after consulting the European Parliament and after obtaining the consent of the Commission. “
***
The IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07, point 1) abandoned the constitutional concept and (point 3) stated that the “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” will be called High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
In addition to the reverting to the “High Representative”, there are only minor changes to the wording of the Constitutional Treaty in the Lisbon Treaty.
***
Some remarks by your glossator:
There is to be no Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, but the substance of the innovations proposed by the Convention is maintained in the renewed office of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
The High Representative is going to chair the Foreign Affairs Council, to lead the external action of the European Commission and to lead the European External Action Service, which will combine resources of the Council Secretariat, the Commission and seconded officials from national diplomatic services.
The High Representative is going to prepare proposals for the Foreign Affairs Council and to implement its decisions. He is going to represent the EU in international organisations and at international conferences. EU accession to and representation in international organisations could do much to give the Union a stronger voice in world affairs.
One could say that the ‘double-hatted’ High Representative/Vice-President acts before, during and after. Internal coordination is improved and the chances for consistent policies enhanced. These innovations translate into more security and prosperity for citizens of the European Union.
Cumbersome decision making and the temptation for Member States to fly solo, including national representation in the Security Council of the United Nations, detract from the possibilities for concerted European action on the world stage.
Openness, transparency and democratic accountability at the EU level remain underdeveloped concerning the CFSP and the CSDP.
Our common challenges have moved ‘upstairs’, and the institutional arrangements mount a few steps, but the elected representatives of the citizens (EP) are left on the ground floor.
The Lisbon Treaty cannot remain the last word on institutional reform.
The selection processes for the President of the European Council and the High Representative/Vice-President are going to highly informative as to the ‘state of the Union’ concerning openness, transparency and accountability. Will we citizens know who the candidates are, will they campaign openly, and how are their merits going to be weighed and debated? Or are we supposed to stand by idly, waiting for white smoke to rise from the Conclave?
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2006 C 306) inserts an Article 13a TEU.
Article 13a
1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who shall chair the Foreign Affairs Council, shall contribute through his proposals towards the preparation of the common foreign and security policy and shall ensure implementation of the decisions adopted by the European Council and the Council.
2. The High Representative shall represent the Union for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy. He shall conduct political dialogue with third parties on the Union's behalf and shall express the Union's position in international organisations and at international conferences.
3. In fulfilling his mandate, the High Representative shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. This service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States and shall comprise officials from relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic services of the Member States. The organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service shall be established by a decision of the Council. The Council shall act on a proposal from the High Representative after consulting the European Parliament and after obtaining the consent of the Commission.
***
A long time has already passed since the proposals of the Convention. The Member States have agreed to start preparations for the European External Action Service. Declaration (number 15) on Article 13a of the Treaty on European Union states:
“The Conference declares that, as soon as the Treaty of Lisbon is signed, the Secretary-General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, the Commission and the Member States should begin preparatory work on the European External Action Service.”
(The Constitutional Treaty contained a corresponding declaration.)
***
If the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty is delayed, the Member States have agreed on guidelines for the transition.
The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) approved a Declaration (number 8) on practical measures to be taken upon the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon as regards the Presidency of the European Council and the Foreign Affairs Council:
“In the event that the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force later than 1 January 2009, the Conference requests the competent authorities of the Member State holding the six-monthly Presidency of the Council at that time, on the one hand, and the person elected President of the European Council and the person appointed High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, on the other hand, to take the necessary specific measures, in consultation with the following six-monthly Presidency, to allow an efficient handover of the material and organisational aspects of the Presidency of the European Council and of the Foreign Affairs Council.”
***
Next time we look at CFSP decisions.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
