Brussels, 29/05/2001 (Agence Europe) - In comments on "The European Council at Stockholm and the Governance of Europe" published in "A View from Brussels", Peter Ludlow, founder of the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), mentions the "collective failure by the European Council and those who report to them, in the Commission, the specialist Councils and the Council secreatriat, to define the nature of the exercise to which they committed themselves at Lisbon in March 2000". "Thanks to the energy and enthusiasm of the Portuguese Prime Minister, the European Council in the Portuguese capital was undoubtedly a success" and in "political and personal terms", Stockholm "was arguably the best European Council for the Commission since Romano Prodi became President", argues Mr Ludlow, but he criticises the organisation of the Spring Summits of the type started at Lisbon. He writes that, "One of Niels Ersboll's more notable achievements as Secretary General of the Council of Ministers was to show the 'sherpas' the door, and in doing so to ensure that the European Council became much more than an exercise in G7 style summitry. At Lisbon, however, the 'sherpas' came back with a vengeance" and Mr Ludlow explains the risks this entails: "unnecessary duplication of effort, as those who were relatively unfamiliar with normal procedures reinvented the wheel, crossed wires and inadequate follow-up". The work of Anna Ekström and Lars Danielsson, whom Göran Persson had put in charge of much of the detailed preparations, "was generally applauded" despite their uphill task. Mr Ludlow commented that "everybody had views. All of them demanded space and paper. Lisbon may have generated even more paper than Stockholm. Stockholm nevertheless generated far too much", but he believes that it would be a mistake to fear for the future of the European Commission since "as the Stockholm meeting demonstrated, the heads of state and government need the Commission more than ever".
Peter Ludlow suggests some changes to the organisation of the Spring Summits. He writes that: - heads of state and government want "to be, and be seen to be, in charge". "Fine. This does not however mean that even they can or should deal with everything indiscriminately", adds Mr Ludlow, who feels that discussions between heads of state and government should "be focussed as well as creative, concentrating on issues where they (…) can add real value"; - "the present system of reporting and coordination, centred as it is on the foreign ministers in the General Affairs Council, is totally anachronistic". To remedy this, COREPER could be assigned "the role that in practice it already has as the last stop on the way to the European Council", argues Mr Ludlow, recognising that the Permanent Representatives are officials "although most if not all of them have become trusted advisers of their heads of state or government, they cannot transform themselves into politicians". He believes this leaves only one real alternative: "a new-style General Affairs Council composed of ministers of European affairs working under the direct authority of the head of state or government". If these ministers have "plenipotentiary power from the heads of government or state to act as his or her alter ego within the context of EU policy, making" then "COREPER, which would be their own permanent extension in Brussels, would ipso facto recover much of its authority", concludes Peter Ludlow.
(CEPS, 1 Place du Congrès, Brussels 1000. Tel: 229 3911. E-mail: info@ceps.be Internet: http: //http://www.ceps.be ).