Under the Lisbon Treaty, the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the creation of the European External Action Service must be approved by the Council, acting by QMV, after consulting the European Parliament and obtaining the consent of the Commission. Thus, the European Parliament does not have much say over the creation of the service as it is only consulted. However, the European Parliament has co-decision powers over changes to the EU's financial and staff regulations, consequently it has been using these powers in order to have influence over the EEAS and have its demands accepted. In fact, by threatening to veto any amendments to the financial and staff regulations, the MEPs have won important concessions from Ms Ashton in the shape of the EU diplomatic service. The European Parliament’s Conference of Presidents issued, recently, a statement stressing that the European External Action Service “should be more communitarian than inter-governmental in character, and this is why the Parliament insists that it is attached to the Commission”, reiterating that the MEPs “will not compromise on these.”
On 21 June, at a behind closed doors meeting, Catherine Ashton, the European Commission, the European Parliament's three rapporteurs and Miguel Moratinos, Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister, reached a political agreement on the organisation and operation of the EEAS.
Moreover, they reached an agreement on Ms Ashton’s declarations on political accountability and on the basic structure of the central administration.
The European Parliament was able to modify the proposal presented by the High Representative last March and generally endorsed by the Commission and the Council.
The European Parliament has approved the compromise deal last week. The European Parliament’s resolution on the proposal establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service was adopted by an overwhelming majority. The ECR group which has been against the creation of such service, surprisingly, has voted in favour. As Dr. Lee Rotherham pointed out “The Brok Report last week provided an opportunity for Conservative MEPs to formally register their disapproval” however “only three did – Messrs Deva, Hannan and Helmer, with Kamall and Van Orden putting on record an official abstention.”
According to Ms Ashton draft proposal, the EAAS would be a “functionally autonomous body of the Union under the authority of the High Representative.” It would be separate from the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council. However, the leaders of the three biggest political groups at the European Parliament have been complaining that Ms Ashton’s proposal confers to much influence on Member States over the scope and structure of the EU diplomatic service. Joseph Daul, Martin Schulz and Guy Verhofstadt, said that "(… ) the proposal currently on the table (…) does not reflect the community interest or promote a genuine European added value but rather the return of intergovernmentalism.” The European Parliament has been calling for the EEAS to be part of the Commission administrative structure and be funded from the Commission budget, whilst being accountable to the Parliament in political and financial terms. Whereas the Member States want to set up an independent body with its own budget, MEPs want attach the EU diplomatic service to the European Commission. However, under the compromise deal the EAS's operational expenditure would be integrated in the Commission's budget, the Commission has therefore responsibility for its implementation, whereas the administrative expenditure would be separated.
The High Representative has proposed that a secretary general would manage the EEAS under her authority, ensuring “effective coordination between all departments in the central administration as well as with the Union delegations.” The secretary-general would have, therefore, too much power, according to the proposal, he/she “(…) shall take all measures necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the EEAS, including its administrative and budgetary management (…)" Such person would also represent the EEAS. According to the MEPs “an omnipotent secretary general and deputy secretary generals does not provide the politically legitimised deputies that the high representative needs in order to do her job properly." They have, therefore, called for “political deputies that can engage on her behalf (Ms Ashton) with both Parliament and partners in third countries," and not civil servants. Under the compromise deal, there would be a secretary general and two deputy secretary generals and at the MEPs request a director general for budget and administration. Moreover, Ms Ashton would be represented by Štefan Füle, commissioner for enlargement, Andris Piebalgs, development commissioner, and Kristalina Georgieva, commissioner for humanitarian aid as well as by the foreign affairs minister of the member state holding the rotating EU presidency.
The EEAS will include officials from the Commission external relations directorate (DG Relex), and Council secretariat as well as personnel seconded from the diplomatic services of the Member States. According to the European Parliament the majority of the EEAS personnel should come from the Commission and the Council. It was therefore agreed that 60% of the EAS staff should come from the EU institutions rather than from member states. According to Emar Brok "This will ensure, as parliament wished, that it will not based on a workforce of national diplomats." Moreover,
according to the European Parliament before July 2013 the EEAS should not only recruit officials from the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission and staff from diplomatic services of the Member States but also all officials and other servants of the EU, including officials from the European Parliament. It has been stressed that “The staff members of the EEAS shall carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interests of the Union in mind.”
Moreover, the MEPs got Ms Ashton assurance that they will be informed of strategic and policy decisions such as the planning and deployment of EU missions abroad and they will have access to classified documents. According to Ms Ashton’s declarations on political accountability “The HR will respond positively to requests from the European Parliament for newly appointed Heads of Delegations to countries and organisations (and EU Special Representatives) … to appear before AFET for an exchange of views.” Moreover, “The HR will facilitate the appearance of Heads of Delegations, EUSRs, Heads of CSDP missions and senior EEAS officials in relevant parliamentary committees and subcommittees in order to provide regular briefings.”
Such political agreement still needs to be approved by the Council and endorsed by the European Commission. Member States cannot just rubber stamp such agreement, as Guy Verhofstadt, MEP also involved in the negotiations, said "The final draft agreed with parliament is hugely different – indeed fundamentally different – to the one originally proposed by Ashton and the commission and approved by member states (…)"
