Brussels, 14/04/2010 (Agence Europe) -The European Parliament is sticking firmly to its guns on the future European External Action Service (EEAS) and is continuing to call on Catherine Ashton to introduce several substantial amendments to her legislative proposal on the setting up of the service, presented on 25 March (EUROPE 10106). On Wednesday 14 April, during a meeting between representatives from the three institutions (the Commission, Council and EP) and the special adviser to Ashton on the EEAS, Poul Skytte Christoffersen, the two co-rapporteurs from the Parliament, Elmar Brok (EPP) and Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), repeated that deputies considered that the draft decision proposed by the high representative (HR) was unacceptable. Addressing a group of journalists on Wednesday, Brok affirmed that Ashton, member states and the Commission "have to understand that the EP has a de facto right of veto on this dossier". The EP in effect, decided to tackle three elements in this dossier as a “package”: financial regulation, regulation on personal statutes (on these two texts, the EP and Council will decide in co-decision procedure) and the creation of the EEAS. Although the proposals on the creation of the service and the amendment to the financial regulation have been on the table since the end of March, the amendment on the staff regulation is still awaited. A draft text on personnel was approved by the Commission at the end of March but it is still subject to consultations with the unions and the proposal will not be formally adopted until after these consultations, which could last until May. Parliament wants to have all three proposals taken on board before beginning its work, explained Brok. This seriously brings the Spanish Presidency's calendar into question. The latter would like to obtain a decision from the Council on the creation of the service before the end of June. Brok affirmed that “this will depend on when we get the proposal on personnel”.
Basically, the EP wants it to be an “integral part” of the European Commission and that politically and in budget matters it be accountable to Parliament. Brok is suggesting that they follow the example of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which functions autonomously while being incorporated into the Commission's structures and budget. Such a statute could also satisfy member states that insist on the sui generis nature of the service, explained Brok. The question of the HR's representation is also continuing to pose a problem at the EP, which does not want a secretary general (as proposed by Ashton). It wants several “political” representatives to be able to speak on behalf of the HR. With regard to domains in the Community remit (development, neighbourhood policy, humanitarian aid), which will be included in the EEAS, the EP considers that HR representation should be overseen by the three European commissioners in charge of these fields. The EP believes that Ashton's representation on these questions is related to the CFSP/ESDP and should therefore be given to two deputies that will be appointed by the HR and member states. These deputies, however, will not simply be “senior officials” but must have legitimacy and political responsibility in the same capacity as an Under Secretary of State in the US, explained Brok. Parliament also wants greater access to classified documents, while maintaining very strict confidentiality rules. In the context of the EEAS, the EP is requesting that “at least half” of the staff be provided by the Commission. Brok explained that “most of the policies (included in the diplomatic service) are in the Community remit. It is therefore quite normal that the Commission provides most of the staff”. National diplomats delegated to the EEAS by their member states (in principle, for just a few years) should be able to remain in the service “indefinitely”. Brok asserts that this is the only way of preventing these diplomats feeling too beholden to the orders from their countries, when they are in fact in the European diplomatic service. MEPs also want to be “consulted” when defining the mandates for international CFSP/ESDP missions organised by the Union and also when heads of EU missions in third countries are nominated. With regard to heads of mission, the EP is not going as far as saying that it has the right to block the nominations made by the HR but it does, nonetheless, want to be able to organise hearings with candidates after their nominations but before they take up their positions (this procedure has also just been followed for new heads of mission in Washington and Kabul). Brok also considers it appropriate that German is maintained as the working language of the service, alongside English and French. He noted that “it would just be necessary for this system to be applied at the Commission. But for this, the German government would also have to agree that the diplomatic service belongs more to the Commission than the Council”. In the field of financial regulation, Brok is optimistic. He believes that the EP's prerogatives will be respected and “talks are developing in the right direction”. (H.B./transl.fl)