Key votes fuel ‘democratic deficit’ debate

Date: 13/06/1996

By Michael Mann and Thomas Klau

A RADICAL shake-up in the way scores of decisions on new EU rules are taken could be on the cards amid growing concern over what critics are calling a “democratic deficit” at the heart of Union decision-making.

The battle over the ban on British beef exports has given new impetus to the debate over the Commission's right to override member states in cases where a vote by EU governments fails to produce a decisive majority either in favour or against a particular proposal.

The issue will come under the spotlight once again later this month when EU environment ministers consider whether to approve an application for the commercial use of a controversial new genetically-engineered product.

Although only a minority of countries are expected to vote in favour of granting Swiss pharmaceutical giant Ciba-Geigy a licence to market its genetically-modified maize seed, opponents will almost certainly be unable to stop it from being approved.

Under the EU's complex approval procedure for genetically-modified organisms, a unanimous negative vote at the 25-26 June meeting of ministers will be required to throw out the proposal. As France is sponsoring Ciba-Geigy's application, this is highly unlikely, leaving it up to the Commission to take a decision.

Member states and green lobbies have already expressed concern that the unelected Commission will have the final say on the licence application, despite widespread anxiety over the potential health and ecological repercussions of releasing such products into the environment.

This is bound to be seized on by those arguing for a shift in the balance of power in the EU's institutions back to the Council of Ministers - an argument pushed to the forefront of the Union's agenda by the BSE crisis.

The Commission's decision to defy the wishes of six member states - including Germany - by unilaterally lifting part of the UK beef ban this week has prompted warnings from Bonn that it might take the Commission to the European Court of Justice.

It has also fuelled a debate within the German government over the way many EU decisions are taken, with Agriculture Minister Jochen Borchert pressing his cabinet colleagues to campaign for a massive strengthening of the Council's institutional position at the Intergovernmental Conference on EU reform.

Borchert wants Bonn to fight for an end to the Commission's monopoly on proposing new legislation and for drastic reform of the 1987 'comitology' agreement which gives the Commission wide-ranging powers to push measures through in areas dealt with by its management committees.

Removing the Commission's sole right of initiative - giving a quorum of member states the right to ask the Commission to submit a legislative proposal within a certain deadline and doing so themselves if it fails to comply - is likely to be seen as too radical by many member states.

But Borchert's call for reform of the comitology procedure could win more support. If adopted, it would cause a revolution in the way decisions are taken in the agricultural sector, as 30 of the 40 joint Council and Commission bodies dealing with farming issues are management committees.

In all these committees, made up of representatives of member states and the Commission, votes are weighted in the same way as in Council. But in the management committees, Commission proposals can only be blocked by a qualified majority of member states - 62 out of 87 votes.

“This means the Commission needs only 26 votes to push a proposal through, even if a large majority of member states are against it - and getting 26 votes is something the Commission is almost always able to do,” said one German official.

Bonn officials stress, however, that Borchert's proposal is still under discussion and the German government's official position on this issue is “still undetermined”.