With the challenges posed by enlargement to the
functioning of the Council, the European Council started its reform
process at Helsinki in December 1999. The discussion
continued in Gothenburg and Barcelona on the basis of reports
presented by the Secretary General/High Representative. The European
Council in Seville in June 2002 subsequently
adopted a set of specific measures to be implemented without amendment to
the Treaties. It also expressed readiness to continue the discussions,
requesting the Danish Presidency to present an initial report to the
December European Council. Against this background, the General Affairs
Council debated the future report and reviewed the various possible
options for reform. The draft report prepared by the presidency contained
two parts. The first set out the main issues having arisen from the
discussions so far and the second described possible approaches to
presidency reform in the form of three models. Model 1 would maintain
the main features of the present rotating presidency while extending the
cooperation between successive presidencies even beyond what was decided
in Seville. There would be a systematic
obligation to share and delegate power. Model 2 consisted of a
combination of an ‘institutional’ presidency for the Council’s
coordinating chain (General Affairs and External Relations Council and
Coreper), to be chaired for instance by the SG/HR or his representatives,
with a system of either a rotating presidency or elected presidents for
most of the other Council configurations and preparatory bodies.
Model 3 was based on the idea of the ‘Team Presidency’. The team
could be composed of three to five members, selected according to criteria
such as geography and size, for a given period of time (one and a half or
two and a half years), to be renewed either at fixed intervals or through
a ‘rolling’ system. The presidency of Council configurations would be
shared between the members of the team. As a variation, it would be
possible to maintain in addition the six-monthly component for the
purposes of the coordinating chain (GAERC + Coreper). The Danish
Presidency also proposed strengthening the role of the High Representative
to respond to the particular problem posed by the presidency function in
the area of external relations. The tasks envisaged ranged from chairing
certain Council meetings to supervising EU special envoys and included
representing the Union in international
organisations or in meetings with third countries, negotiating
international agreements in the area of CFSP/ESDP, submitting proposals
and informing Parliament. Finally, the Danish draft report presented the
ideas put forward by a number of Member States on an elected president of
the European Council. This variant could be combined with models 2
or 3. The European Council president would be elected for a longer
period (of up to five years), would prepare and preside over the European
Council and would represent the EU in relations with third countries at
Heads of State or Government level. Concluding the debate, several Member
States indicated a preference for reform model 1 while also referring
to the broader debate on the future institutional structure of the
Union within the framework of the
Convention and the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference. Other
delegations underlined that it would be necessary to consider measures
going beyond model 1.