Grahn, in one of his comments, quoted Guy Verhofstadt, saying that during his years on the European Council, he never heard anyone mention the European interest.
The aspiration of every democracy is to insure that the General Interest prevails over the various vested interests. When at the country level it is not very clear if the majority can truly represent the National Interest, capturing the General Interest at the level of the European Union is even harder. Can a simple electoral rule translate the European Interest?
Obviously, in my humble position of a Eurotechnocrat, I cannot make a general judgment on the topic. The only thing I can blog about is the perception that we have inside the European Commission on how the General Interest of the Union is represented.
In our daily work, I would say that this feeling can be perceived from three parts: the general interest felt through the Commission itself, from the Europarliament and from the Member States, ie the Council.
Within the Commission, my guess is that vast majority of Officials really do put forwards the interest of the European Citizens before the interest of their fellow citizens. This is actually one of my pride in being an officials. Of course there are few of us who are excessively patriotic and even fewer who succumbs to lobbies' pressure.
Even at the highest level, I can also say that the Commissioners are generally taking their role seriously. One speaking example: the Common Agricultural Policy which has with years turned into a cash machine for farmers. What is the point of spending the vast majority of the European Budget on a tiny fraction of the population? When the EC tried to reform the subsidies, it was with great pain as producing Memeber States fought to preserve their interests. Well, we are still paying the subsidies (less and less), even if it makes the consumers and society worse off.
With respect to the Parliament and the MEP who really do their jobs (not the bozos cashing their indemnities), there is a true desire to represent the European Citizens. You can be your own judge by looking at the laws that were passed: SMS rate, limitation of toxic products, etc. From what I experienced from the MEP scrutiny, it is clear that MEPs do not act like their American counterparts and the Pork Barrel legislation.
I cannot say the same about Member States... No need to work at the EC to see how each Council becomes a bargain mess whenever a major decision needs to be taken. Where most of countries agree that majority equals general interest, at the Council level it must be consensus in most case, two third at best, . But when it comes to our relations with Member States, mostly in the various committees, it can be clearer that we are not talking from the same point of view. But what do you expect? After all committees are there to make sure that Member States don't get screwed. I personally found it hard sometimes, because some have no shame in doing so.
Like any other honest public servant, I would like as much as possible serve the General Interest. So anything that strengthen the European Citizens is good for me. But only you, the European Citizen, can decide what is the best proxy for the General Interest. If at the national level, there is a agreement, it is yet to be done seriously at the European level. European Constitution, Treaty of Lisbon or anything else.
I think the ball is in your hands.
Showing posts with label Member States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Member States. Show all posts
The role of the Commission in the Union
For the EU Open Day, Grahnlaw, a fellow blogger, asked: "What is your response to the continuously spread allegation about unelected elites in Brussels making 80 per cent of our laws?"
Without giving a full lecture on the European Union, let me first summarize a bit the situation.
On the one side, you have the well-know 3 major actors of the European Union:
On the other side, since the Maastricht Treaty, The European Union is built on 3 distinct pillars:
As to answer Grahn's question, the EC has (absolutely) no prerogatives on the two last pillars. It is the Member States (through the Council) with a sprinkle of Parliament who make the show in those topics. I have no statistics, but I sincerely doubt the 80% figure, just due to this fact.
We play only in the first pillar. On this, it was agreed democratically that Member States will relinquish some powers to the Union (not to the European Commission, to the Union). And if you have read my previous posts, we can't go rogue: we either have the MEP or a committee on our back. Even if we have great autonomy, the Council has the last word in the vast majority of cases.
One truth must be told high and loud. In our dear Union, the Council is the main legislative power! Not the Commission, the Council... So I totally agree on one of your comments: "the Commission has weakened by the shift of the 'institutional balance' towards the Council".
So what do the Brussels Elites do for a living? We are not as powerful as some Eurosceptics would like to believe. We draft policies in our first pillar and we make sure that Member States don't deviate too much from the treaties. We are definitely not elected officials, we are technocrats.
Last but not least, at the European Commission, officials works for their respective Commissioners, who vote on decisions as a college. Commissioners are not elected but they are selected by member states (after lengthy and complicated negotiations) and approved by the Parliament.
So let's make things clear: More than often, the Brussels Elite are accused of messing up with national sovereignty; unfortunately, when you look in details at the law-making process in the European Union, Member States do a non-negligible part of the work and when the Commission is in charge, it has democratic watchdogs. People should not fall that easily on this populist belief. We are just an easy scapegoat for many governments to justify their failure.
Without giving a full lecture on the European Union, let me first summarize a bit the situation.
On the one side, you have the well-know 3 major actors of the European Union:
- The European Commission
- The Council of the European Union (Member States)
- The European Parliament
On the other side, since the Maastricht Treaty, The European Union is built on 3 distinct pillars:
- European Community
- Common Foreign and Security Policy
- Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters
As to answer Grahn's question, the EC has (absolutely) no prerogatives on the two last pillars. It is the Member States (through the Council) with a sprinkle of Parliament who make the show in those topics. I have no statistics, but I sincerely doubt the 80% figure, just due to this fact.
We play only in the first pillar. On this, it was agreed democratically that Member States will relinquish some powers to the Union (not to the European Commission, to the Union). And if you have read my previous posts, we can't go rogue: we either have the MEP or a committee on our back. Even if we have great autonomy, the Council has the last word in the vast majority of cases.
One truth must be told high and loud. In our dear Union, the Council is the main legislative power! Not the Commission, the Council... So I totally agree on one of your comments: "the Commission has weakened by the shift of the 'institutional balance' towards the Council".
So what do the Brussels Elites do for a living? We are not as powerful as some Eurosceptics would like to believe. We draft policies in our first pillar and we make sure that Member States don't deviate too much from the treaties. We are definitely not elected officials, we are technocrats.
Last but not least, at the European Commission, officials works for their respective Commissioners, who vote on decisions as a college. Commissioners are not elected but they are selected by member states (after lengthy and complicated negotiations) and approved by the Parliament.
So let's make things clear: More than often, the Brussels Elite are accused of messing up with national sovereignty; unfortunately, when you look in details at the law-making process in the European Union, Member States do a non-negligible part of the work and when the Commission is in charge, it has democratic watchdogs. People should not fall that easily on this populist belief. We are just an easy scapegoat for many governments to justify their failure.
Q&A: Committees in our daily work
Julian Frisch asks: "How do these committees affect your (personal) daily work in the Commission? Do have frequent contact to member states' experts from these committees?"
It really depends in which DG you are working in. In my case, I would say that we do have to deal with a committee quite often. There are regular meetings with the Member States experts, but they are definitely not our direct bosses. With time, you start to preempt their comments... It is all about national interests, so pretty obvious to guess.
Regarding the quality of the experts in the committees, it varies a lot. Once again, it relates to national interests. They make sure they have knowledgeable people in areas dear to their agenda. You can also imagine that some countries are more inclined to protect their own interests, for example those with large industrial powers, let say.
It really depends in which DG you are working in. In my case, I would say that we do have to deal with a committee quite often. There are regular meetings with the Member States experts, but they are definitely not our direct bosses. With time, you start to preempt their comments... It is all about national interests, so pretty obvious to guess.
Regarding the quality of the experts in the committees, it varies a lot. Once again, it relates to national interests. They make sure they have knowledgeable people in areas dear to their agenda. You can also imagine that some countries are more inclined to protect their own interests, for example those with large industrial powers, let say.
Accountability at the European Commission: the role of the Member States
In one of my previous post, I tried to explain how we, Officials at the EC, are accountable to the Europarliament. Well there is another layer of accountability towards Members States this time: Comitology.
So you would think that the EC who is getting more and more autonomy could just act as a rogue beast and passed any legislation it wants to. WRONG! Member states are watching us and they make sure, very carefully, that their parochial interests are preserved.
Basically, the EC has the right of initiatives on a large number of topics (eg agriculture, internal market, competition, etc.) but since the 60's, Members States have developed Comitology. In short, there are now more than 250 committees that scrutinize our works and depending on the topic, the EC cannot issue a regulation without the assent of the oversight committee.
I will take two examples:
1) In the Regulatory Procedure, with regard to health for example, the EC can't do a single thing without the agreement of the Committee. If the committee rules against, the Parliament can be consulted. And at the end, the Council of the EU has the final word, ie Member States.
2) In the Management Procedure, with regard to the Common Agricultural Policy for example, the EC can ignore the committee's opinion. Still the Council of the EU has the final word.
As a conclusion, it is clear Member States have a good idea of what we are doing. If they don't and say that EC is coming up with a surprise piece of legislation, then maybe they should be more active in the different committees. I hope it is becoming clear to you what is the role of the EC in the Union. My next post will deal with that question and answer the question of Grahnlaw, a fellow Euroblogger.
So you would think that the EC who is getting more and more autonomy could just act as a rogue beast and passed any legislation it wants to. WRONG! Member states are watching us and they make sure, very carefully, that their parochial interests are preserved.
Basically, the EC has the right of initiatives on a large number of topics (eg agriculture, internal market, competition, etc.) but since the 60's, Members States have developed Comitology. In short, there are now more than 250 committees that scrutinize our works and depending on the topic, the EC cannot issue a regulation without the assent of the oversight committee.
I will take two examples:
1) In the Regulatory Procedure, with regard to health for example, the EC can't do a single thing without the agreement of the Committee. If the committee rules against, the Parliament can be consulted. And at the end, the Council of the EU has the final word, ie Member States.
2) In the Management Procedure, with regard to the Common Agricultural Policy for example, the EC can ignore the committee's opinion. Still the Council of the EU has the final word.
As a conclusion, it is clear Member States have a good idea of what we are doing. If they don't and say that EC is coming up with a surprise piece of legislation, then maybe they should be more active in the different committees. I hope it is becoming clear to you what is the role of the EC in the Union. My next post will deal with that question and answer the question of Grahnlaw, a fellow Euroblogger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
