Top official attacks the way governments conduct EU business

Date: 06/04/2000

By Gareth Harding

ONE of the Council of Ministers' top officials has launched a blistering attack on the way EU governments conduct their business in Brussels.

Pierre de Boissieu, who is responsible for the day-to-day running of the Union's most powerful body, astounded MEPs earlier this week by accusing foreign ministers of failing to take their responsibilities seriously enough and claiming that policy was often made on the hoof without proper discussion.

He also criticised EU leaders for allegedly agreeing texts they had neither read nor understood, and argued that the practice of rotating the presidency of the Union every six months was inefficient and liable to result in constantly shifting priorities.

The Council's deputy secretary-general also dismayed the Parliament by appearing to take a dismissive attitude towards openness, saying: "I think it is a good idea but I tend to fall asleep thinking about it." He added: "The Council is not meant to be a public platform; it is a decision-making body."

De Boissieu's comments underline the case for deep-rooted reform of the Council before the EU enlarges to take in the dozen or so countries queuing up to join. But they will also be seized on by critics as 'evidence' of his desire to see the Council's powers strengthened to the detriment of the European Commission and Parliament.

Union leaders warned in December that enlargement "could well slow the Council down and even paralyse it", and called for a number of reforms to the way the institution manages its affairs. But De Boissieu's remarks to members of the assembly's constitutional affairs went much further.

France's former ambassador to the EU said the Council operated in a "much less efficient" way than other international bodies such as the G8 and claimed this resulted in part from the shambolic nature of foreign ministers' monthly meetings.

"Often ministers turn up just before lunch and leave just after," he said, adding that many treated the whole affair as nothing more than the "run-up to a press conference". He claimed that as a result, the rule that at least eight ministers must be present when votes are held was constantly breached, with many represented instead by their ambassadors or officials. "It has not been challenged in eight years; otherwise, no decision would have been taken," he said.

He also maintained that one reason why there had been "a lot of problems" getting the Union's fledgling foreign and security policy up and running was that decisions were often made "off the cuff", without any in-depth discussion.

De Boissieu said the same was true of the twice-yearly European summits, where EU leaders signed off conclusions without having read them beforehand. "How can you expect 60 million French people to understand a 30-page text when the heads of state do not even understand it?" he asked.

He also attacked the disruption caused by rotating the presidency of the Union. "It is very difficult for the Council to constantly manage priorities that change every six months," he said. "You cannot just move from one priority in the North Pole to one in Africa to one in the Mediterranean."

De Boissieu's solution would be to boost the role of Council's permanent staff in Brussels. He also believes the Council would work more efficiently if the heads of its working groups, where national officials meet to thrash out common positions, did not change with each presidency.

Brussels-based diplomats agreed power was slipping out of the hands of foreign ministers, but dismissed De Boissieu's comments about EU leaders as "true in the past, but not now".

One of the Council of Ministers' top officials has launched a blistering attack on the way EU governments conduct their business in Brussels. Pierre de Boissieu, who is responsible for the day-to-day running of the Union's most powerful body, astounded MEPs by accusing foreign ministers of failing to take their responsibilities seriously enough and claiming that policy was often made on the hoof without proper discussion.