Felkészülés a 2011. első félévi magyar EU-elnökségre
Az Elnökségi stábtagok uniós szakmai képzése
2008. november 19. és 2009. január 29.
Országgyűlés, Felsőházi Terem

Political leadership: 18 month programme and presidency priorities

by Francisco Duarte Lopes, Counsellor / Antici at the Permanent Representation of Portugal to the EU, Brussels

I would like to start by thanking the invitation to be here today. It’s a pleasure to be in Budapest and share our experience in preparing for the presidency of the EU Council.

I intend to structure my presentation in four parts: the first on the presidency and its exercise; the second on the trio and the 18 months programme; the third on the presidency priorities and the fourth on the presidency’s management. And, of course, I’m looking forward to hear your comments and reply to your questions.

1) The presidency of the Council:

• The reasoning behind a presidency of the Council that rotates every half year among Member States has to do with inclusion, has to do with reinforcing the sense of belonging and has to do with sharing of responsibilities. In the European Union we share values, we share interests, we share sovereignty, we share benefits and, of course, we also share responsibilities. And assuming the presidency of the Council for six months is, above all, assuming the responsibility to preside over an increasing number of meetings, to steer the activity of the Council and to assume the leadership of the Council and thus playing a central role in leading the European Union as an all.
• This experience of rotating presidencies has been beneficial to the Union institutions and to the Member States. It has been good for ‘Brussels’ because every semester adds to the EU institutions a more complete and encompassing knowledge of the Union. In a Union of hundreds of million people, with so many diverse characteristics, the EU institutions need to be permanently challenged by working with all the governments and administrations of the MS’s. The presidency is a crucial moment in these contacts: during the presidency semester, the Member State and the institutions are not only ‘demandeur’ and ‘demandé’, asking and supplying each other; they share a common task of bringing solutions to problems at the EU scale. The presidency has also been good for the Member States: being at the presidency seat helps us having a general and comprehensive view of the Union, of its problems, its strengths, its weaknesses and makes us – in a way, even forces us – to be more at ease with the art of compromise, more ready to seek solutions. To sum up, I would say that every country and every administration changes for the good after a presidency and becomes more “European minded”; on the other end, the EU institutions also change a bit after every presidency, becoming a little “more Slovene, more Portuguese or more Hungarian”.
• Allow me a quick word on my own personal experience during the first Portuguese presidency of the Council in 1992. Back then, I presided over a working party on visas and I always felt that the experience gained was of the utmost importance for my future professional life. Although I was participating in meetings of the same working party before the presidency, experiencing the presidency duties gave me an additional and global sight over the issues at stake and equipped me with an inside knowledge of how the Union structures work. This special insight is useful even if we move to different areas of the European Affairs (and that is precisely my case, as I didn’t come back so far to JHA issues).
• I will now refer to some prerequisites for a successful presidency: 1) good logistic and administrative coordination, to maintain the right pace in presiding over around 2000 meetings during the semester; 2) a good technical knowledge of the issues (of the ‘dossiers’) to assure a good management of each file and its correct insertion into the ensemble, into the global flow of the presidency and into the global activity of the European Union; 3) the willingness and the capacity to speak to everybody and to carefully listen to all the partners; 4) an attitude of honest broker that serves to reassure all the other MS and the institutions that the presidency doesn’t have any hidden agendas (on this point, a personal – and very positive – advance warning: from what I’ve seen since 2004, I’m convinced that Hungary is today one of the MS that is more often situated at the centre of gravity, at the point where the positions of the 27 meet to produce what we normally call “the European position”). Finally, apart from the four prerequisites, a reference to a ‘possibility’: sometimes there’s a possibility to bring an innovative initiative or an achievement that adds value to the Union and to the integration process (as examples, in the case of the Portuguese presidencies of 2000 and 2007, I can point to the first summits EU – India and EU – Brazil, that helped rebalance the strategic partnerships of the Union to the new globalised world). So, summing up the four prerequisites: a good logistic and administrative coordination, a good technical knowledge of the issues, the willingness to speak to everybody and an attitude of honest broker.
• Now, before I turn into the 18 months programme, just a note: I know there’s a possible ‘Lisbon effect’ looming over the preparations of your presidency: the Treaty of Lisbon brings some institutional changes, including to the exercise of the presidency of the Council and I’m sure you are preparing for both scenarios. But these four prerequisites for a successful presidency remain as important with or without the new Treaty. So, my logic conclusion is: push for the Lisbon Treaty, prepare for the Lisbon Treaty, but don’t let it distract you from your to-do list!

2) The “trio” and the 18 month programme

• The ‘trio’ of presidencies is not referred to in the present Treaties and only the Council Rules of Procedure include a reference to the 18 months programme presented by three presidencies. Behind the decision to move from a system that encompassed two programmes (one medium term programme of three years and one annual programme) to a programming system with only one programme of 18 months were reasons of simplification as well as proper continuity and balanced grouping. It’s certainly better to have only one programme instead of two, provided this programme assures the necessary linkage with the following period of 18 months (hence the need for a first chapter in every 18 months programme – the ‘strategic framework’ – prepared in consultation with the next ‘trio’). Besides, it was becoming clear that three years was too long and that the medium term programme was less and less useful.
• On grouping, the list of presidencies until 2020 shows a good balance in the composition of the trios, placing together Member States of different dimension, different economic patterns and different geographic location. This diversified composition of the trios brings consistency to the grouping, adds a stimulus to cooperate and it’s an incentive to a better understanding of the even more diversified positions among the 27 Member States. All this without putting into question the responsibility of each presidency to plan, manage and decide on its own; because it is important to note that the trio exists to help the preparation of the presidency with a framework of continuity framework but it’s not the trio that presides, it’s not the trio that bears the responsibility of the presidency. Each Member State continues to be fully in charge and fully responsible for each presidency. And this national responsibility for the presidency marks the limits to the cooperation between the members of the trio: each of the other two Member States should be ready to help but avoid to mess up with the exercise of the presidency, avoid substitutions or self proclaim leaderships driven by voluntarism or self-assurance.
• The preparation of the 18 months programme starts well in advance; I know you’ve already had the first contacts with Spain and Belgium.
• After sketching the programme by defining its structure, the three Member Sates start the progressive filling in. In order to do so, you need to be very well aware of the great trends in the EU activity, keep regular contacts with the previous trio and, to draft the ‘strategic framework’ of the programme, work with the following trio. Throughout this exercise, the role of the General Secretariat of the Council is instrumental by providing the necessary support and advice to the three Member States involved. Equally important is a close and full cooperation with the Commission, to assure that the work of the Commission and the work of the Council are coherent and mutually reinforcing. From an internal point of view of each Member State, it is very important – I prefer to say that it is crucial – to involve the Permanent Representation in Brussels on a continuous basis as they are always positioned at the edge of EU activity and in permanent contact with the other European stakeholders.
• Most of the preparatory meetings of the 18 months programme take place at senior officials level but at least a few meetings at political level are needed, normally at the beginning (to give political impetus) and at the end (to negotiate possible leftovers – a few especially difficult questions that remain to be settled – and to upgrade the presentation of the programme to the outer world). In the case of the first trio – Germany, Portugal and Slovenia –, the kick off was at the level of Secretary of State and the final session at the level of Minister of Foreign Affairs.
• But, of course, preparing a programme is not presiding. In my opinion, the main achievement of preparing the 18 months programme is the horizontal and coherent approach to European issues that this exercise brings to the three Member States involved. Neither can the programme be a full and operational roadmap to follow in your presidency semester; it is only a framework and an initial input as you – like every other presidency – will have to adjust to the unforeseen. Unforeseen natural or manmade events, inside or outside the Union: an hurricane, an earthquake, a war, the threat of a war, an election result (or several election results) that force a sudden update of your priorities or change the basic balances of power or some important compromises already achieved.

3) The Presidency priorities

• In choosing the presidency priorities, each MS needs to draw from the 18 month programme; but you have, of course, a good degree of freedom to underline some points (that are either especially important for your country or that especially fit into your semester).
• Timing is especially important. No need to have the priorities ready too soon, in order to have time to effectively integrate recent events or to make adjustments to accommodate the results of the last weeks of the preceding presidency.
• Identify a few main priorities. I don’t want to be too assertive on this but a short list of main priorities helps present and promote a half-yearly leadership of the Council. Even the paper that includes the presidency priorities gains in being short (in our case, it was a 10 pages document highlighting a handful of priorities).
• Whenever possible, check around for ‘plan-B solutions’ in order to be better equipped for additional needs in one or your main priorities. Just to give an example, I’ll mention the SISone4all, a technological solution Portugal made available to the EU partners in order to assure the enlargement of the Schengen space at the end of 2008; this was a credible and efficient temporary solution and can also become a possible permanent solution in case of further need.

4) The management of the presidency

Some (hopefully useful) reminders:

• First: the importance of involving the Permanent Representation; don’t forget that the PermRep is a kind of mini-government in constant contact with the European institutions and all the other Member States.
• Second: the importance of a good network of interfaces (coordination units), at different levels: at high political level, smooth contacts between the office of your Prime Minister and the office of the President of the Commission (as well as the office of the permanent President of the European Council if the Lisbon Treaty is already in force); at ministerial level, equally easy contacts between the offices of your ministers and the offices of the commissioners and the High Representative; at the Permanent Representation, very close cooperation between the presidency coordinator and the teams of the Permanent Representative and the Deputy Permanent Representative with the coordination services of the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission; internally, in your administration, a swift and easy relationship between the European coordination structures of different ministries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
• Third: avoid, as much as possible, to create new structures, new groups, even if at the beginning their tasks are supposed to be temporary. It is normally a way of bringing additional burden to the structure of the Council and to the coordination role of the presidency. Instead, make full use of the existing structures, avoid getting bind by precedents and only create new groups when it is absolutely necessary. On the same line, don’t book meetings just for the sake of meeting, just to justify the existence of a committee or a working party. It can happen that a given preparatory instance as no ground to meet during one semester. Every meeting should be as meaningful and efficient as possible.
• Finally, a word on the period just after the presidency. People get exhausted, it’s only natural; but, when possible, let people stay in the same committees, in the same working parties for some time after the presidency. It will be positive for your country as these people sometimes become a sort of senators of their groups, because of the experience they accumulated. Though mostly dependant on electoral choices, this principle is also true for the political level.
• Above all, even if not working in the same group or committee, a person that has gone through the experience of a Council presidency will always carry with her or with him an ‘European added-value’. And this, of course, can only be good for the EU and for each Member State!

A projekt az Európai Unió támogatásával, az Európai Szociális Alap társfinanszírozásával valósul meg.
ÁROP-225-2008-0001