The Presidency of the Council of the European Union is held on a rotational basis by EU member states for six month terms. Andreas Warntjen writes that the frequent change of the Presidency sometimes causes disruption in EU legislative decision-making. He notes that during the negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty the principle of increasing the term from six months up to a year was rejected in favour of creating a permanent President of the European Council, which is held by an individual for terms of two and a half years. Despite this change, however, the limited role of the European Council in legislative negotiations has ensured that continuity in Council decision-making still presents a challenge

Warntjen, Andreas

LSE Research Online

Credit: Eric Fischer (CC-BY-SA-3.0)11/12/2013The rotating Council presidency hinders legislativecontinuity in the Council of the European Unionblogs.lse.ac.uk /europpblog/2013/12/11/the-rotating-council-presidency-hinders-legislative-continuity-in-the-council-of-the-european-union/The Presidency of the Council of the European Union is held on a rotational basis by EU member states forsix month terms. Andreas Warntjen writes that the frequent change of the Presidency sometimescauses disruption in EU legislative decision-making. He notes that during the negotiation of theLisbon Treaty the principle of increasing the term from six months up to a year was rejected infavour of creating a permanent President of the European Council, which is held by an individual forterms of two and a half years. Despite this change, however, the limited role of the EuropeanCouncil in legislative negotiations has ensured that continuity in Council decision-making stillpresents a challenge.The European Union needs to respond in an efficient and timely manner to the challenges of a complex and fast-changing world if it wants to effectively further the welfare of its citizens. This requires continuity of legislativedecision-making. Shortcomings in this regard were identified in the discussions leading up to the Lisbon treaty,which sets out the rules for decision-making in the EU.A special focus was placed on the work of both theCouncil of the European Union (often referred to simplyas ‘the Council’), where ministers and civil servantsdiscuss legislative proposals, and of the EuropeanCouncil, where the heads of government decide thebroad guidelines of EU policy. A particular concern wasthe length of the term of office of the Council presidency,which chairs and organises the meetings of the Council.The Convention on the Future of Europe decided toincrease the term of office of the Council presidencyfrom six months to a minimum of one year to strengthenthe continuity of the Council’s legislative work. Othersuggestions involved a stronger role for the Secretary-General in steering the Council’s legislative work.The Lisbon treaty, however, left the six-monthly rotationin place for the presidency of the Council. Instead,continuity in the decision-making process of the Council is supposed to be ensured by a longer term presidency ofthe European Council, of up to five years, as well as closer coordination between the rotating Council presidenciesin the form of multi-annual programmes. The Lisbon treaty therefore installed a hybrid solution and two separatepresidencies: a longer term presidency for the meetings of the heads of government in the European Council, but acontinuation of the rotation system for the meetings of the ministers discussing EU legislation in the Council.The rotating Council presidency remains primarily in charge of the deliberative process regarding legislativeproposals, most of which are not discussed in the European Council, but only in the Council of the European Union.Furthermore, multi-annual programmes have only a limited effect on the actual conduct of individual Councilpresidencies. Thus, the reforms of the Lisbon treaty are unlikely to represent a major step in increasing thecontinuity of the Council’s legislative work.The Council is chaired by the member states on a half-yearly system of rotation. Every six months, a new1/3government takes over the role of chairing the meetings of the ministers and working groups of civil servantsdiscussing EU legislation in the Council. However, many discussions on legislative proposals are not resolved duringone presidency term.The frequent presidency changes can lead to inefficiencies in the legislative process. Due to national sensitivitiesand different priorities, the discussions on some proposals are effectively stalled during a specific presidency. During the Council presidency of a country, EU affairs receive more coverage from the national press of thatcountry. A presidency sometimes delays discussions on a legislative proposal that is controversial in its country, toavoid resolution while they are in the spotlight as the chair of the Council. Governments also often try to use thepresidency to highlight topics that are of particular national importance. Thus, priorities can shift from one presidencyterm to the next. An incoming presidency might also approach some topics from a different angle, therebyintroducing discontinuities in the ongoing discussions. For example, the new presidency might pursue a differentstrategy in an effort to build a sufficient consensus on a pending proposal.A change of the presidency can interrupt the legislative process and lead to a less efficient negotiation process:momentum is lost, information becomes outdated, and compromises fade away. This can lead to a major disruptionin the discussion of some legislative proposals and, at the aggregate level, quite substantial inefficiencies in thelegislative process overall.The elected, long-term presidency of the European Council does represent a major innovation in the decision-making process of the European Council. It does not, however, necessarily have a major impact on the process oflegislative decision-making in the Council. The European Council only meets a few times a year and most of itsdiscussions are devoted to broad issues of foreign policy and the overall development of the EU: for example how torespond to the Eurozone crisis. Only a small percentage of legislative proposals are discussed by the heads ofgovernment in the European Council. In contrast, the Council, in its various formations of ministerial and workinggroup meetings, discusses all legislative proposals. The Council also meets more frequently than the EuropeanCouncil. Thus, the bulk of the legislative deliberations take place in the Council, not in the European Council.Similarly, the multi-annual programmes are a useful tool for planning successive presidencies. However, the extentto which they actually guide the conduct of individual presidencies in steering the legislative work of the Council isdebatable. The multi-annual programme can only give broad guidelines, which might be out-of-date by the time anew presidency term starts. Thus, the rotating Council presidency is primarily in charge of steering legislativedeliberations in the Council.The hybrid solution of the Lisbon treaty represents a trade-off between the goal of strengthening the continuity of theEU’s legislative decision-making and the benefits of a rotation system. The latter include the dispersion of influence,equal opportunity to highlight topics of national importance, and the learning effect of holding the presidency. Oneshould note, however, that the value of some of these  benefits is diminished in a Union of 28 member states, wherea country only holds the presidency once every 14 years.An elected, longer term presidency for the Council, possibly consisting of a representative set of severalgovernments, or a stronger role for the Secretary-General, would probably increase the continuity of the Council’slegislative work. The benefits of more efficient legislative decision-making in the Council might outweigh thediminished benefits of a rotation system.Please read our comments policy before commenting .Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, norof the London School of Economics.Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1e3CCeE _________________________________2/3About the authorAndreas Warntjen – University of TwenteAndreas Warntjen is Assistant Professor for European and International Politics at the University ofTwente, the Netherlands. His main area of expertise is legislative decision-making in the EuropeanUnion, focusing on decision-making in the Council. Andreas Warntjen has published in EuropeanUnion Politics, the Journal of Common Market Studies, the Journal of European Public Policy andWest European Politics, amongst others. He is also a member of the editorial board of the Journalof European Public Policy.3/3

The rotating Council presidency hinders legislative continuity in the Council of the European Union

University of Twente Research Information

blo gs.lse.ac.ukhttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/12/11/the-ro tating-council-presidency-hinders-legislative-continuity-in-the-council-o f-the-european-union/Cre d it: Eric  Fische r (CC-BY-SA-3.0)AdminThe rotating Council presidency hinders legislative continuityin the Council of the European UnionThe Presidency of the Council of the European Union is held on a rotational basis by EUmember states for six month terms. Andreas Warntjen writes that the frequent change of thePresidency sometimes causes disruption in EU legislative decision-making. He notes thatduring the negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty the principle of increasing the term from six monthsup to a year was rejected in favour of creating a permanent President of the EuropeanCouncil, which is held by an individual for terms of two and a half years. Despite this change,however, the limited role of the European Council in legislative negotiations has ensured thatcontinuity in Council decision-making still presents a challenge.The European Union needs to respond in an ef f icient and timely manner to the challenges of  a complexand f ast-changing world if  it  wants to ef f ectively f urther the welf are of  its cit izens. This requires continuityof  legislative decision-making. Shortcomings in this regard were identif ied in the discussions leading up tothe Lisbon treaty, which sets out the rules f or decision-making in the EU.A special f ocus was placed on the work of  boththe Council of  the European Union (of tenref erred to simply as ‘the Council’), whereministers and civil servants discuss legislativeproposals, and of  the European Council, wherethe heads of  government decide the broadguidelines of  EU policy. A particular concern wasthe length of  the term of  of f ice of  the Councilpresidency, which chairs and organises themeetings of  the Council. The Convention on theFuture of  Europe decided to increase the termof  of f ice of  the Council presidency f rom sixmonths to a minimum of  one year to strengthenthe continuity of  the Council’s legislative work.Other suggestions involved a stronger role f orthe Secretary-General in steering the Council’slegislative work.The Lisbon treaty, however, lef t the six-monthly rotation in place f or the presidency of  the Council. Instead,continuity in the decision-making process of  the Council is supposed to be ensured by a longer termpresidency of  the European Council, of  up to f ive years, as well as closer coordination between therotating Council presidencies in the f orm of  multi-annual programmes. The Lisbon treaty theref ore installeda hybrid solution and two separate presidencies: a longer term presidency f or the meetings of  the heads ofgovernment in the European Council, but a continuation of  the rotation system f or the meetings of  theministers discussing EU legislation in the Council.The rotating Council presidency remains primarily in charge of  the deliberative process regarding legislativeproposals, most of  which are not discussed in the European Council, but only in the Council of  theEuropean Union. Furthermore, multi-annual programmes have only a limited ef f ect on the actual conduct ofindividual Council presidencies. Thus, the ref orms of  the Lisbon treaty are unlikely to represent a majorstep in increasing the continuity of  the Council’s legislative work.The Council is chaired by the member states on a half -yearly system of  rotation. Every six months, a newgovernment takes over the role of  chairing the meetings of  the ministers and working groups of  civilservants discussing EU legislation in the Council. However, many discussions on legislative proposals arenot resolved during one presidency term.The f requent presidency changes can lead to inef f iciencies in the legislative process. Due to nationalsensit ivit ies and dif f erent priorit ies, the discussions on some proposals are ef f ectively stalled during aspecif ic presidency.  During the Council presidency of  a country, EU af f airs receive more coverage f rom thenational press of  that country. A presidency sometimes delays discussions on a legislative proposal that iscontroversial in its country, to avoid resolution while they are in the spotlight as the chair of  the Council.Governments also of ten try to use the presidency to highlight topics that are of  particular nationalimportance. Thus, priorit ies can shif t f rom one presidency term to the next. An incoming presidency mightalso approach some topics f rom a dif f erent angle, thereby introducing discontinuit ies in the ongoingdiscussions. For example, the new presidency might pursue a dif f erent strategy in an ef f ort to build asuf f icient consensus on a pending proposal.A change of  the presidency can interrupt the legislative process and lead to a less ef f icient negotiationprocess: momentum is lost, inf ormation becomes outdated, and compromises f ade away. This can lead toa major disruption in the discussion of  some legislative proposals and, at the aggregate level, quitesubstantial inef f iciencies in the legislative process overall.The elected, long-term presidency of  the European Council does represent a major innovation in thedecision-making process of  the European Council. It does not, however, necessarily have a major impact onthe process of  legislative decision-making in the Council. The European Council only meets a f ew times ayear and most of  its discussions are devoted to broad issues of  f oreign policy and the overalldevelopment of  the EU: f or example how to respond to the Eurozone crisis. Only a small percentage oflegislative proposals are discussed by the heads of  government in the European Council. In contrast, theCouncil, in its various f ormations of  ministerial and working group meetings, discusses all legislativeproposals. The Council also meets more f requently than the European Council. Thus, the bulk of  thelegislative deliberations take place in the Council, not in the European Council.Similarly, the multi-annual programmes are a usef ul tool f or planning successive presidencies. However, theextent to which they actually guide the conduct of  individual presidencies in steering the legislative work ofthe Council is debatable. The multi-annual programme can only give broad guidelines, which might be out-of -date by the time a new presidency term starts. Thus, the rotating Council presidency is primarily incharge of  steering legislative deliberations in the Council.The hybrid solution of  the Lisbon treaty represents a trade-of f  between the goal of  strengthening thecontinuity of  the EU’s legislative decision-making and the benef its of  a rotation system. The latter includethe dispersion of  inf luence, equal opportunity to highlight topics of  national importance, and the learningef f ect of  holding the presidency. One should note, however, that the value of  some of  these  benef its isdiminished in a Union of  28 member states, where a country only holds the presidency once every 14 years.An elected, longer term presidency f or the Council, possibly consisting of  a representative set of  severalgovernments, or a stronger role f or the Secretary-General, would probably increase the continuity of  theCouncil’s legislative work. The benef its of  more ef f icient legislative decision-making in the Council mightoutweigh the diminished benef its of  a rotation system.Please read our comments policy before commenting.Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy,nor of the London School of Economics.Shortened URL for this post: http://bit .ly/1e3CCeE _________________________________About the authorAndreas Warntjen – University of TwenteAndreas Warntjen is Assistant Prof essor f or European and International Polit ics at theUniversity of  Twente, the Netherlands. His main area of  expertise is legislative decision-making in the European Union, f ocusing on decision-making in the Council. AndreasWarntjen has published in European Union Polit ics, the Journal of  Common Market Studies,the Journal of  European Public Policy and West European Polit ics, amongst others. He isalso a member of  the editorial board of  the Journal of  European Public Policy.

The rotating Council presidency hinders legislative continuity in the Council of the European Union

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online

University of Twente Research Information

NARCIS