Time for Union to make an executive decision

Date: 13/02/03

Will the EU's future be held in the hands of a split or single executive? Clarification is essential, argues Dana Spinant

WHILE Europe's leaders have been busy wrangling over how many presidents the EU should have, they have avoided the core question which may well determine this: does the Union have an executive?

Will it have a single executive after the Convention on the future of the EU finishes its deliberations? Or will it have a split executive, with some functions exercised by the European Commission and some by the Council of Ministers? And finally, will the European Council, gathering heads of state and government, assume an executive role or simply continue to be an institution that decides on general political orientation?

The answer to those questions should logically determine the number of presidential posts required in Brussels.

The issue of an executive, usually defined as the branch of government concerned with executing laws, has long divided politicians. Some see the Commission as an executive, others believe the College of Commissioners is the embryo of an EU government and lastly there are those who insist the Union will never have such a thing.

This question is at the root of the split between supporters of a single European president, and those calling for an elected president of the European Council who would share power with the Commission's head. Supporters of one president, chairing both the Commission and the European Council, argue this is the first step towards achieving one executive. The proposal to elect a president of the European Council would create a counter-executive, they warn.

"This proposal is about transforming the European Council into the executive for adults, and the Commission into the executive for kids," declared Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner António Vitorino, a member of the Convention's praesidium, during the Convention plenary in January.

Convention members from Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Finland, the European Parliament as well as the Commission see the proposal for a dual presidency as a way of assuming the executive leadership of the heads of state and government. Indeed, a full-time head of the European Council would have powers over foreign and security matters. They fear that would jeopardise the Commission's evolution into a genuine executive. However, supporters of the dual presidency say the Union will at any rate not have a single executive.

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the Convention's chairman, who is in favour of an elected president of the European Council, rules out an EU executive. "We will never have a European executive, only executive functions exercised by some EU institutions," he told members of the European Parliament last September. Giscard was adamant those functions will not be assembled within one institution, the Commission. The former French president sees the exercise of executive functions in the EU at three levels - the Commission implements programmes, strategies and manages the Union's budget; the Council of Ministers has an executive role in foreign affairs, justice matters and some economic policy aspects, and national administrations implement European legislation.

One Convention insider foresees no extension of the Commission's role through the present reforms, but predicts an improvement in the Commission's capacities.

"It is important to improve the executive functions of the Commission through simplifying and lightening comitology [the system by which the adoption of implementation measures by the Commission is subject to supervision by committees gathering representatives of national governments].

"However, I do not see the emergence of a system with a unique EU executive. The EU does not possess the administrative machinery which backs the executive in member states, nor does it seek to have it," he said. "The majority of decisions taken by the EU are being implemented by national, regional or local authorities, and it will be even more so with the accession of new member states," he added.

At present, the Commission has powers over competition, negotiation of international agreements (under mandate from the member states), management of programmes of development cooperation, and in other areas where member states delegate to the College the power of adopting implementing measures. However, the Commission is still kept away from the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and justice and home affairs.

"We are not about to write a text [the future constitution] where all executive functions are grouped in one institution," the Convention insider warns. The reason is that member states are not ready to hand over to the Commission the power of deciding over "actions involving soldiers or policemen. Missions which could put in danger lives must still be approved by EU states' governments, and must be sanctioned by national parliaments", he said.

"We need to keep a collective responsibility of member states in a bid to make the societies accept their troops being sent to the battlefield. The Commission will not have executive powers over this. We are therefore not capable of making the jump to an EU executive today."

However, others claim that reinforcing the capacity of the Union to act on the international scene requires allowing the Commission to manage CFSP. "We can't go ahead with the present situation of a split executive," Andrew Duff, Liberal MEP and senior Convention member, told this newspaper. Duff, who believes that a single European president would be the first step towards a unique EU executive, reckons the present constitution will preserve shared functions between the Commission and the Council. Yet, he imagines they will be pooled together in the future.

"I would be surprised if in 20-30 years we would still have two institutions exercising executive functions," he said. He believes the constitution should provide enough flexibility so to allow this to happen without the need for a new treaty.

However, another senior Convention official warns that if the Commission wants to become the EU executive it should give up the monopoly of initiative it currently enjoys. "They cannot require at the same time the exclusive right to initiate laws and to be a pure executive, it does not make sense and it is not acceptable," he said. "The supporters of such a move should read Montesquieu," he said, referring to the studies on the separation of powers by the 18th-century French political theorist.

Although EU insiders are split over whether the Commission will become the Union's executive, they concede it will never be a government akin to those in member states. François Lamoureux, the Commission official who drafted the controversial 'Penelope' constitution, said: "Looking at the size of the EU budget in comparison to national budgets [it cannot exceed 1.27 of EU GDP] and at the issue of defence, I cannot see how we can have an EU government. The EU should lean towards an executive which executes what the Council and the Parliament decide, which negotiates international agreements etc. But there is no place for a government with autonomous decision-making."

It seems to be agreed that the EU will not be led by a state-like government. However, EU leaders should clarify the essential question of whether the EU will have a single executive or continue functioning with a split version. Without this clarification, their wrangle over the number of presidents risks being seen as an attempt to secure top jobs in Brussels for their retirement.

Author asks: Will the EU's future be held in the hands of a split or single executive?