Brussels, 19/03/2010 (Agence Europe) - Catherine Ashton is expected to present her proposal for the new European External Action Service (EEAS) at the COREPER meeting on 25 March, well-informed sources have revealed. Member states, the Commission and Parliament still differ on a number of points with regard to the new diplomatic service, “but, in general, things are progressing nicely and we should be able to stick to the set timescale” of an agreement by the end of April, the sources say. European foreign ministers will hold a joint meeting in the afternoon of Monday 22 March to discuss outstanding issues and the timescale. This week, COREPER discussed the structure of the EEAS on the basis of an organisation chart proposed by Ashton. This suggested that the day-to-day running of the service be left to a secretary general, assisted by two deputies - one with responsibility for inter-institutional relations and communication, and the other chairing the Political and Security Committee (PSC). The Situation Centre (SitCen) would be the responsibility of the secretary general, as would the directorate general for delegations abroad and the budget. Five other DGs would be put under the charge of the secretary general and his/her two deputies: a “thematic” DG (human rights, non-proliferation, relations with the UN, world issues), and four DGs covering specific countries or regions. Several member states feel that the PSC and SitCen are of such importance that they should be directly under the HR's responsibility. The organisation chart also allows the HR to appoint “special envoys” to represent her, for example, at events of major importance, such as the disaster in Haiti. Some member states are unhappy that these special envoys will be appointed directly by the HR without any involvement of the member states, unlike what currently happens with EU special representatives. Development aid planning and the neighbourhood policy budget also continue to present problems. Member states and the HR not only want the EEAS to be responsible for defining the strategic priorities of these two policies (which will remain the responsibility of the Commission), but believe it should be involved to as great an extent as possible in implementing these priorities. This, of course, is not to the liking of the Commission, which wants to hold on to its competence in these areas. (H.B./transl.rt)