Closing time may be near for the presidency merry-go-round

Date: 24/01/02

As Spain begins its third stint at the helm of the EU, Dick Leonard examines the case for ending the present six-month rotating system for which, say critics, many of the original arguments no longer apply,

THIS is the third time that Spain has taken over the presidency of the EU's Council of Ministers since it joined the European Community in 1986. Quite possibly, it will be the last.

This would be no reflection on Spain's capacity to steer the EU's affairs. The programme which Prime Minister José-María Aznar put before the European Parliament last week was impressive, and there is no doubt that his administration has prepared itself assiduously for its task.

If the programme comes unstuck it is unlikely to be due to Spanish shortcomings. More probably it will be because of inherent weaknesses in the system of a six-monthly rotating presidency, which critics are beginning to question.

Next month the London-based Centre for Economic Reform (CER) is to publish a pamphlet, stating baldly that 'it is time to abolish the EU's rotating presidency'. Entitled Shaping a Credible EU Foreign Policy, and written by Steven Everts, it argues that 'after several rounds of enlargement and with the EU assuming a greater role in foreign policy, many of the original reasons for a rotating presidency have disappeared.

'At the same time, three major problems have become apparent: a lack of continuity, poor external communication and inadequate credibility.'

Everts says that incoming presidencies are prone to add their 'pet priorities' to the work programme of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), without however demonstrating that this has had a noticeably disruptive effect. He is on stronger ground in arguing that the EU - despite the appointment of Javier Solana as its High Representative for the CFSP - still has difficulty in speaking with one voice on foreign policy issues.

He quotes Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh as relating how during the Swedish presidency she wanted to talk to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, only to be told that he was already on the line with Solana. She offered to hold the line, only to learn that Commissioner Chris Patten was already holding.

'Finally', says Everts, 'there is the problem of credibility, particularly when a small country with limited diplomatic clout holds the presidency. Non-Europeans simply do not take the EU very seriously when this is the case.'

I would make two comments on Everts' analysis. The first is that his criticisms, even if justified, apply exclusively to the CFSP, which is only a relatively small - if highly important - part of the responsibilities of the Council of Ministers. The second is that the solution he proposes is deeply flawed.

In essence, it is to create a permanent presidency led by Solana, or his successors, and staffed by a greatly expanded secretariat, bolstered by national officials on secondment.

Either that, he suggests, 'or an out-and-out directoire of the Big Three'.

There is a case for scrapping the six-monthly rotation, but for different reasons from those advanced by Everts. It has more to do with the inexorable expansion of EU membership, probably to 30 or more countries by the end of the decade, which would mean that member states would only have the responsibility every 15 years or so.

By and large, the present system has served the EU well over its 44 years of existence. National pride is involved and there is little doubt that successive governments bring a great deal of enthusiasm and ingenuity to the task, and that the fresh ideas they bring with them tend to have a positive effect on the development of the Union.

There have, in fact, been remarkably few examples of member states abusing their position by attempting to manipulate the presidency for their own advantage, and these have usually proved counter-productive. The most obvious case was the British presidency under John Major, and one might also mention France, in the second half of 2000, when the outcome of the Nice summit was distorted by Jacques Chirac's overbearing chairmanship.

The burden of the presidency is, of course, much greater for the smaller states, but they tend to compensate by marshalling their limited resources and making a more determined effort to succeed.

The greatest strain has fallen on Luxembourg, with its tiny population (less than 400,000), but as a founder member, and with its high level of economic and political development, it has risen to the occasion each time and has not noticeably failed to deliver the goods.

Whether some of the smaller candidate states, such as Latvia and Malta, could make an equivalent effort is, however, open to doubt, as some of their worried diplomatic representatives acknowledge, in private at least. The conclusion I draw from this is that member states should not be excluded from running the presidency, but should combine their forces in doing so.

This was first suggested by Nils Ersboll, the former secretary-general of the Council of Ministers, in a booklet he wrote in conjunction with former French premier Raymond Barre and Peter Ludlow, of the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS).

Ersboll's suggestion was that in future the member states should be divided up into four or five groups, who would pool their resources in team presidencies, lasting for 18 months or two years, with different states responsible for chairing and organising the various subject-specific ministerial councils. Ideally, the teams would mix large and small states, poorer and richer, and those from different geographical regions.

One such combination after the next enlargement could link France with Poland, Slovenia, Denmark, Portugal and Malta. Another could consist of Britain, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Sweden and Cyprus.

Ersboll first put forward his proposal seven years ago and it seems to me that the passage of time has greatly strengthened the case for its implementation. It is very much to be hoped that it will be seriously considered, along with other suggestions for strengthening the presidency, by the constitutional Convention which will begin its work in late February under the chairmanship of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.

Major feature. As Spain begins its third stint at the helm of the EU, author examines the case for ending the present six-month rotating system for which, say critics, many of the original arguments no longer apply.