Following the Irish ‘yes’ vote on the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament is resuming the debate on the implementation of certain aspects of the text. In first place is the creation of the future European External Action Service, supposed to assist the new high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, on which MEPs want to have their say.

Elmar Brok (EPP, Germany) is responsible for this issue. He presented his draft report at the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO), on 6 October in Brussels. The text was on hold while awaiting the second Irish referendum, so as not to prejudge the result. Ireland has now said ‘yes’ and, even if the signatures of the Polish and Czech presidents are still missing, the 27 member states have ratified the treaty. “Work should therefore resume as time is running out,” considers the rapporteur, noting that “the Council and the Commission are getting organised and structured, and discussing among themselves”.

The European External Action Service - a result of the Convention, taken up in the Constitutional Treaty and then in the Lisbon Treaty - is the subject of debate between the Council and the Commission, each trying to obtain more than its fair share. As for the Parliament, it wants to attempt to maintain democratic control over this new body. Therefore, Brok firstly recalls that the service will depend on the high representative. The latter will also be one of the vice-presidents of the European Commission and, as such, will thus be subjected to the political control of the Parliament, like the other members of the EU executive, by means of hearings and the vote of investiture of the college as a whole.

Moreover, underlines the rapporteur, the Lisbon Treaty remains unclear on the External Action Service, which it depicts as a sort of “sui generis administration,” entirely separate and yet to be defined. “The entire debate will relate to the interpretation of these two words but, to me, this does not mean that the service will be independent.” The MEP in fact rejects the idea of an autonomous authority that could not be controlled by anyone. He also considers that the Council must not make it an intergovernmental authority distanced from the Community model and therefore from the democratic control of the EP. Elmar Brok thus calls on the Commission to “place all of its institutional influence on the preparatory work”.

BUDGET INTEGRATED INTO COMMISSION

He establishes four key points, which he believes must be respected. Firstly, on the administrative and budgetary level, the service must be an integral part of the Commission. In particular, its budget will depend entirely on that of the EU executive “because the budget allows the Parliament to exert great influence, including at the level of personnel, which could, or could not, be financed”. Regarding competences, the service must operate in such a way that, in the areas where the Council is competent, the College of Commissioners will not be able to by-pass its decisions but simply execute them. Furthermore, the high representative will have considerable responsibilities in both institutions and “on this point it will be necessary to provide legal support as well as a balance in the management of these competences”.

Lastly, on the very composition of the service, it must include representatives from the Commission, Council and member states, all paid on the basis of the Community budget and with the same status and salary conditions. Whatever the origin of these persons, they should all be entitled to the possibility of “having a career”. Therefore, the use of assigned national experts, as is the current practice at the Commission, is not a good idea for the EP. Other issues will be added, such as the qualification of staff and, on this point, the rapporteur proposes creating a “European college of diplomats”.

Given that the European Council could make a decision on the subject, on 29 and 30 October in Brussels, the Parliament wishes to adopt its report on 19 October at the Committee and between 20 and 22 October in the Strasbourg plenary, in order to be heard. n