The next 10 days are going to be the most important of this Commission.
On 18 October, the Commission will publish its 2023 Work Programme. It should be its last major work Programme before the European Elections in May 2024.
It gives the EP a year to work on major proposals. As a general rule, the European Parliament hold their last Plenary in April 2024. They then break and campaign for the Europe-wide Parliamentary election in May.
The case for political discontinuity
When the new European Commission comes into office, it is not bound to take on board the proposals from their predecessor.
The incumbent President Juncker Commission in 2015 explained political discontinuity as:
“The principle of political discontinuity applies at the start of a new political mandate. The incoming authority, in this case the European Commission, reviews the proposals which have been put to the legislators by its predecessor, but not yet adopted. It then decides whether or not to pursue work in these areas. This principle is set out in Article 39 of the Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and European Commission. This Article states that “The Commission shall proceed with a review of all pending proposals at the beginning of the new Commission’s term of office, in order to politically confirm or withdraw them, taking due account of the views expressed by Parliament“. The Commission has reviewed around 450 proposals, and has taken the decision to recommend the withdrawal of a significant number of them.
How does the Commission decide which proposals to withdraw?
The new Commission has taken note of the fact that our citizens want our time and efforts to be focused on the things which will have the biggest impact on jobs and growth already in 2015, and which have good prospects of being adopted in the near future and delivering concrete results on the ground. We have also been careful to reflect the mandate given to us by the European Parliament who voted in favour of the focused Political Guidelines of President Juncker.
Therefore, the Juncker Commission has carefully examined each of the around 450 proposals put on the table by the previous Commissions and currently still pending, to assess whether they should be maintained, amended or withdrawn. In doing so, it has checked:
-
- whether the pending proposals are in line with the ten priorities of this Commission and still fit to address current challenges;
- what their prospects are for adoption in the near future;
- whether they will can be successfully implemented on the ground;
- whether they still serve their initial objectives.
Following this thorough analysis, the Commission is proposing to withdraw or amend 80 proposals.
In many cases, in particular in the social and environmental fields, the Commission remains strongly committed to the objectives of the pending proposals, but wants to present new and better ideas for how to achieve them. Proposals are of no use if they are overtaken by events, have no prospects for adoption in their current form, or if the long negotiations between Parliament and Council have watered them down to a point where they can no longer achieve their initial purpose.
Some proposals will be withdrawn because they have become obsolete, for example where new measures were adopted in the meantime. Others because the substance of the proposal has been denatured in the negotiations in Council or Parliament and does not match the Commission’s original ambitions. That is the case for a recommendation for common European standards on tourism and for the Energy Taxation Directive, where Member States are not ready to accept the changes we proposed to improve energy efficiency by taking account of CO2 and real energy content in tax levels. Other proposals we have decided to withdraw and replace with a new proposal if no agreement is reached within 6 months – including a planned Directive on the dissemination of Earth observation satellite data, regulation on labelling of organic products and the original Maternity Leave Directive. In this particular case society has moved on since the original Commission proposal was made – for example the vast majority of Member States have improved maternity leave arrangements at national level, partly thanks to the mobilising effect of the Commission’s proposal.
There also proposals we withdraw for the sake of clarity for our stakeholders. For example, the ACTA proposal is still on the pending proposals list despite being rejected by the European Parliament, and we wish to officially withdraw it. The same applies to proposals to liberalise the market for ground handling services at European airports.
In some cases the Commission is proposing to withdraw proposals in order to replace them subsequently by more ambitious proposals or to tailor them more closely to its ten priorities (for example to present a new proposal with a broader approach on the circular economy to meet our ambitions in a more effective way).
The Commission will await the views of the European Parliament and the Council on these proposals before confirming the withdrawals in the coming months.”
A current Commission should realise the good sense of not burdening a new Commission with its political legacy. Practically, it means you must get your major legislative proposals out the door to the Council and the EP by April 2023. This gives the EP 12 months to focus on and dispose of the major legislative files.
This Commission has tabled a lot of legislative proposals, so space is already limited on the parliamentary calendar. Ft for 55 has already aged MEPs by 5 years.
Operationally, Directorate-Generals are working to make sure they make an April 2023 cut-off.
What happens if it does not apply?
This time round, under the Juncker Commission, the instructions went out from the Secretary-General and President’s Head of Cabinet that political discontinuity would be applied for the last work programme before the European Elections.
It seems that this time no such instructions have been sent by today’s Commission leadership. If von der Leyen’s team do not feel bound by this practical operational rule, we could be in for an exciting ride.
It would mean that this Commission could continue publishing proposals, small and large, at a fast pace until early 2024. There may be some who do not mind that there is no legislative time for this Parliament to consider the proposals. I am not one of them.
Law-Making at the end of the Mandate
It reminds me of when the Fur Ban was tabled back in 2008, to be quickly adopted by the Parliament and Council, in a near vote of acclamation.
The proposal was not listed in the 2008 Work Programme. The Commission’s tabled the proposal on 23 July 2008.
The European Parliament agreed to it on 5 May 2009, with 543 for, 56 against, and 39 abstentions. The European Elections were on 4-7 June MEP.
The Council agreed to it on 16 September 2009
The law was published in the OJ on 31 October 2009.
The proposal was not listed in the 2008 Work Programme.
The Case for Political Discontiuinity
Personally, I prefer the dull predictability of knowing when the major legislative files are due out the door. Good law-making should never be quick.
If the proposal you want is not there on 18 October, you may have to wait for the next Commission.
Let’s see what happens on 18 October.
Interesting post Aaron, it comes at hand for my work 🙂