Coping with Multiple Presidencies in the EU: Challenges for National Administrations

One of the most visible and discussed changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty concerns the introduction of the two new leadership figures in the EU: the permanent President of the European Council (POTEC) and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the new High Representative). The two new actors have each been entrusted with a part of a role previously held by the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU). However, the rotating Presidency, contrary to the views often expressed in the media and also among the expert community, still has a job to do and shoulders responsibility for the advancement of the work in the Council during its six-monthly term in office. As a stark difference to the previous ‘single EU Presidency’ principle, the leadership of the Council and European Council is consequently split between the POTEC, the new High Representative and the rotating Presidency.

Other changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, especially the extension of co-decision procedure to a number of new policy-fields1, which increases the role of the European Parliament bringing it on a par with the Council as co-legislators, consequently even increased the role, and the importance, of the rotating Presidency of the Council.

These changes, the introduction of the two new posts and a greater role for the European Parliament in the decision-making process, have profound effects on the organisation
and competences required by national administrations.

This article analyses the effects of the split in the Presidency-system in the EU on the national administration of the Member State entrusted with holding a six-monthly rotating Presidency. It differentiates between the challenges the new leadership structures and governance modes have brought to organisational patterns in the administration, both in the capital and to their Permanent Representation in Brussels, and with regard to the competences that are required by individual officials as they enter previously unknown terrain with different actors and procedures.

The article concludes with recommendations for overcoming the identified challenges, as well as some prospective views.

[Article forms part of 30th Anniversary Special Issue of EIPASCOPE]

• Primary Source

EIPASCOPE: Archive http://www.eipa.eu/en/eipascope/archive/

---