Commission braced for IGC

Date: 29/02/1996

By Elizabeth Wise

AS it prepares for the Intergovernmental Conference next month, the European Commission is marshalling its defences against any attempt to weaken its powers.

The college's 20 members and the thousands of fonctionnaires who depend on them are clearly feeling threatened by governments which they fear will try to use the IGC to strip them of their powers in setting trade and commercial policy.

Last week, the Commission received advice from its own legal service on how best to retain its authority and defend itself from charges of power-grabbing.

“There's a growing tendency of member states to take things into their own hands,” complained an EU official. “Even when the Commission has exclusive competence, the member states are interfering more often.”

If proof were needed of government mistrust of the Commission, this week alone would have provided it. EU foreign ministers refused again to give the institution negotiating mandates for trade agreements with South Africa and Mexico, with their ambassadors stating openly that they did not trust the Commission to defend their interests.

Trading arrangements with third countries always bring out the competing interests of the Commission and Council of Ministers. The former has the power to negotiate trade accords, but only in constant consultation with member states.

The Commission, accustomed to setting commercial policy for the EU's internal market, has had a hard time getting used to the yoke when setting its sights abroad.

The two came to loggerheads during the Uruguay Round. Governments gave the Commission the go-ahead to negotiate on their behalf, but did not want the institution alone to sign the final GATT accord and therefore have sole power to implement it. New sectors, such as services, also reopened the question of who had competence.

Another show-down occurred when member states began to negotiate their own airline agreements with the US, to the horror of Transport Commissioner Neil Kinnock, who saw his dreams of an internal airline market under threat.

Over the past two years, as the Commission has initiated new trading pacts with countries on every continent, EU member states have grown wary, and now downright aggressive, in trying to curb what they perceive as megalomania on the part of Commissioners.

Hence the current fight over South Africa. While the 15 EU states say they want a trade pact with Pretoria, they do not hide their desire to pull in the reins on what one EU ambassador recently called the “galloping Commissioners”.

The Commission sees in their anger a threat to its own position and is thinking about how to defend itself.

Its legal service advises the Commission that it should “energetically defend its exclusive competence in areas...such as common trade policy or those sectors affecting the common market”.

But, aware of government opinions that the Commission is overstepping its powers, the lawyers advise Commissioners not to argue with the Council about the decision-making powers given to them by the treaty.

Instead, they should “make a systematic demonstration” of why an EU action has more value and sway than a joint decision of 15 governments.

“It is in the Commission's interest to move the debate from one of exclusivity, which quickly becomes sterile, to one about efficiency and coherence of external action,” the report concludes.

Effectively telling Commissioners to choose their battles carefully, the lawyers advise the Commission to be wary of insisting on using its own powers in international fora. In those cases, it could let member states retain more of a semblance of authority, as long as they give the appearance of unity and respect Community rules.

“The main thing is to defend Community competence when it is necessary, but to accept pragmatic solutions when necessary,” it says. Eventually, policy must be set to clarify who is in charge of what when the EU goes to bat in an international institution.

Lastly, according to the legal service, the Commission should “develop a line of argument” which would highlight what is at stake if the Community loses the coherence which gives it strength at negotiating tables.