19 October 2007
News from Lisbon about the new treaty
A report from the House of Commons European Scrutiny committee earlier this month complained about the procedure that had been followed in drawing up the new Reform Treaty. It objected to “an essentially secret drafting process conducted by the Presidency, with texts produced at the last moment before pressing for agreement. The compressed timetable now proposed, having regard to the sitting terms of national parliaments, could not have been better designed to
marginalise their role.”
Read the whole report here.
The process of negotiation conducted by the German presidency was investigated and criticised by Jan Seifert on his blog here: http://blog.jan-seifert.de/?p=120
The problem of the secret negotiations has not ended with the German presidency, of course: the Portuguese are continuing the tradition. The national governments like it that way because they can say one thing to their counterparts in other countries and something different to the press afterwards. Here is an example.
The Guardian reports that in the last minute discussions, Gordon Brown “moved to stop the European parliament having a veto over the appointment of the president of the commission.”
Read the report here - in the 11.30 briefing.
Now, the European Parliament has had such a veto since the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 – prior that, it had to be merely “consulted”. To supporters of parliamentary democracy in Europe, the role of the EP in choosing the president of the Commission is extremely important. It is barely conceivable that it should be reduced, and certainly not without a fight.
So, what has Gordon Brown actually done? Did the issue arise, or not? If it did, what was agreed? At the time of writing, there does not seem to be a final text of last night’s agreement on the web, so I cannot check what the final deal is. When I can, I will post an update here.
The Guardian blog on the Lisbon summit is not entirely unquestioning of the official statements. The big issue, though, is “whether or not Gordon did in fact have a glass of champagne last night. I've heard two conflicting reports. The question is, is there photographic evidence?” Good to know that the media is active on the European question ...
marginalise their role.”
Read the whole report here.
The process of negotiation conducted by the German presidency was investigated and criticised by Jan Seifert on his blog here: http://blog.jan-seifert.de/?p=120
The problem of the secret negotiations has not ended with the German presidency, of course: the Portuguese are continuing the tradition. The national governments like it that way because they can say one thing to their counterparts in other countries and something different to the press afterwards. Here is an example.
The Guardian reports that in the last minute discussions, Gordon Brown “moved to stop the European parliament having a veto over the appointment of the president of the commission.”
Read the report here - in the 11.30 briefing.
Now, the European Parliament has had such a veto since the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 – prior that, it had to be merely “consulted”. To supporters of parliamentary democracy in Europe, the role of the EP in choosing the president of the Commission is extremely important. It is barely conceivable that it should be reduced, and certainly not without a fight.
So, what has Gordon Brown actually done? Did the issue arise, or not? If it did, what was agreed? At the time of writing, there does not seem to be a final text of last night’s agreement on the web, so I cannot check what the final deal is. When I can, I will post an update here.
The Guardian blog on the Lisbon summit is not entirely unquestioning of the official statements. The big issue, though, is “whether or not Gordon did in fact have a glass of champagne last night. I've heard two conflicting reports. The question is, is there photographic evidence?” Good to know that the media is active on the European question ...
Posted by Richard Laming at 15:16
False alarm. The Guardian reports as follows:
"I said appointment of the president of the commission, but actually, the official was talking about the new high representative role (the one we are not allowed to call foreign minister).
The difficulty was that the high representative will be wearing two hats. One is as representatives of in the council and the other as vice president of the European commission.
He would start both posts in January 2009, but the European commission team won't be in place until after the June 2009 elections.
Parliament, as you rightly state, has to approve the commission but in law they have to approve it as a whole, and cannot take decisions on individual members.
For this reason some were arguing that a special process should be worked out that would enable the European parliament to veto the candidate chosen by governments.
Gordon Brown blocked this, insisting that the high representative was primarily an intergovernmental appointment.
The compromise reached means that the holder of the post may have to take office temporarily and then be approved by the European parliament along with the rest of the Commission, once it's in place."
The clarification is welcome. But what does Gordon Brown's achievement amount to?
After all, in most parliamentary democracies, the foreign minister is approved as part of a team rather than subject to a separate vote (there was no separate vote in the House of Commons on David Miliband, for example) so normal parliamentary practice is in fact being followed in the EU. Also, the EP will get the chance to vote on the whole Commission after the elections in June 2009 - the question at issue relates only to the first six months of that year - at which time objections to any individual Commissioner can be expressed by the EP. Rocco Buttiglione was rejected in the autumn of 2004 on this basis. The elections to the EP in June 2009 therefore remain an opportunity for the voters to choose what type of Commission they want and what type of legislative programme they want, if the political parties are ready to give them that choice. The onus moves on to those politicians who have called for more European democracy to use the opportunities now open to them to keep their promises.
Further update: the statements from the Lisbon summit are now on the web and on the election of the Commission president, there is this: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/ds00869.en07.pdf with the important phrase about the European Parliament: "It shall elect the President of the Commission."
Post a Comment
Back to the top