[A-List] EU: internal wrangles

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

The continuing effort to streamline decision-making within the EU, very
much linked to the efforts of the larger members to exercise a more
overt hegemony, is meeting stiff opposition from the smaller countries,
not surprisingly. However it will be interesting to see what the
European Roundtable of Industrialists and other corporate lobby groups
make of all this. The logic points to greater centralisation and
rubber-stamping, but national pride is likely to stand in the way,
especially at election times. The ideological service performed by
neoclassical trade theory is likely to come to the fore, as every step
towards greater integration and/or centralisation is justified on
"neutral" efficiency grounds.


Plan for EU 'super council' runs into wall of opposition
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
The Independent, 08 June 2002

Plans to form a powerful "super council" to streamline decision-making
in the European Union and to slim down the number of committees in
Brussels have run into trouble, with three countries pledging their
opposition.

Proposals to overhaul the EU's creaking procedures have been drafted by
Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy supremo, and will be one of the
main subjects to be debated by EU leaders when they meet in Seville
later this month.

But despite the support of big countries, including Britain, a group of
smaller nations, made up of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg,
have attacked the plans, saying they would make matters worse.

Mr Solana wants to achieve changes that could be made quickly without
altering the EU's treaty. They include a reduction in the number of
ministerial meetings taking place in Brussels, with committees such as
the Development Council being purged, and a decision to televise some
legislative sessions.

But the key element of the package is a plan to split the General
Affairs Council, where EU foreign ministers meet and which is supposed
to take an overview of EU work, into two bodies. One would concentrate
on foreign affairs while the other would help to supervise EU business,
aiming to clear blockages and reduce the amount of technical discussion,
which clogs up summits of EU leaders.

Mr Solana has not specified which ministers he thinks should be on the
new body, although one possibility is that deputy prime ministers would
be nominated. This would prevent difficult issues being referred to
summits, allowing EU leaders to focus on the bigger picture.

However, a joint paper from Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg
stated: "Although we are willing to consider ways of improving matters,
we do not see any advantage in creating a new council formation,
composed of deputy prime ministers or ministers/state secretaries for
European affairs. Furthermore, we see major disadvantages in splitting
the General Affairs Council into two separate formations.

"Surely such cures are worse than the disease? Such measures are out of
proportion to the problems identified, and would mean the EU abandoning
the one ministerial forum that can make the crosscutting links needed
for a coherent internal and external policy."

While the countries were not opposed to some streamlining of Brussels in
principle, they said: "European integration benefits from the broadest
possible involvement of ministers from the member states."

Mr Solana's allies stress they will have to gain agreement on the
package but are confident that most of their arguments will be accepted.
The Netherlands will be in a weak position to oppose the move because
its government is still being formed, and Luxembourg - as a very small
state - is unlikely to block. The position of Belgium and Italy, which
also has reservations, will be crucial. In countries with coalitions,
the powers of the foreign minister tend to be very sensitive because he
or she often belongs to a different party from the prime minister.

Other changes Mr Solana wants include having a formal agenda for a
summit, rather than a letter from the leader of the country that holds
the presidency. EU leaders would also take formal decisions rather than
reaching conclusions, under his plans.

Bigger changes, such as a reform of the EU presidency system, which
rotates every six months, will not be discussed in Seville because that
would require a change of the EU's governing treaty. Such reforms will
have to wait until 2004, when EU leaders are due to re-write the treaty
to pave the way for the EU's next expansion.