The end of the current year sees the end of the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Before the torch is being passed on to Belgium, it is worthy to take a look at the past half year and see if there are any results worthy of our attention.
Difference between the various “councils” within the EU
It is important not to confuse the Council of the European Union with the Council of Europe (a pan-European international organisation that has existed alongside the EU since 1949, the framework of which includes the famous Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights) or with the European Council which consists of the heads of state and government of the EU member states.
The European Council is a separate body which has had its own president since the reforms of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, who is currently Charles Michel. The meetings of the European Council are also called “European summits” (one happening at the time of publication of this analysis), indicating the political weight of those which usually are convened to make high level political decisions about the direction of the EU.
On the other hand, the Council of the European Union, or “Council” for short, refers to the meetings of member states’ ministers responsible for a policy field, currently in ten different formations, which mainly participate in the legislative proceedings of the EU, alongside the European Parliament, in a so-called “co-legislative” role. The so-called “rotating presidency” is responsible for the operation of this Union institution.
The relevance of the “rotating presidency” of the Council of the European Union
The Council of the European Union (from now on: Council) has the “rotating presidency” (currently held by Spain), which means that, based on a predetermined order (currently decided by the European Council in 2016), one member state performs the complex task of coordinating the preparation of the submissions to and of the work of the Council every six months. This can be really difficult sometimes, because by the time a proposal comes before the level of the ministers, the governments of the member states “chew” it thoroughly, which means consultations taking place at the political level in the form of professional discussions in various working groups, and then in the coordination of permanent representations.
The coordination of this process is one of the main tasks of the presidency held by a member state, and it usually does provide the individual member states with significant political influence, which can later be transformed into political advantages via exchange of interests (additionally some opportunities to elevate country image, and other less important, but still useful perks). This is the main reason why EU member states still maintain this, at first glance, bit confusing system. It has its worth to them. They can profit from the opportunity of taking this role by casually acting in the interest of other member states, which in turn, do not forget it to them. In exchange they can return the favour, even outside of the scope of activities of the EU. The institution of the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union exists because it offers all existing political actors the opportunity to bargain, to give and receive political favours.
In exchange for the use of these advantages, the member state with the presidency is expected to ensure a smooth operation of the Council, which is usually an uneasy task, as various member states may harbour different interests related to various EU legislative issues. This work is often assisted by the negotiations on the level of European summits by heads of states and governments (possibly coordinated by the President of the European Council) which often serves as the final level of hammering out political differences between member states. If a political compromise is needed on that level, the presidency of the Council is usually “only” responsible to coordinate the practical realisation of this high-level political deal.
To make sure that a half-year presidency of the Council does not become a “single member state-issue”, the Lisbon Treaty has introduced the system of so-called “trios”, meaning three member states’ presidencies working together. These “trios” have to set longer-term goals and prepare a common agenda determining the major issues and possible topics for the upcoming 18-month period, and all three member states are required to prepare its own detailed 6-month programme. The current presidential trio is made up of the presidencies of Spain (actual presidency), Belgium (holding the presidency in the first half of 2024) and Hungary (holding the presidency in the second half of 2024).
Plans and priorities of the Spanish presidency – “Europe, closer”
Spain (member of the European Union since 1986) holds the presidency of the Council of the EU for the fifth time. The state has chosen the motto: “Europe, closer”, referring to a political goal of advancing in European unity and trying to bring citizens closer to the decisions on the Union level. For starters, this motto and its explanation is nothing new for those who keep an eye on European politics, it refers to an evergreen subject.
Additionally, Spain has identified four priorities to focus on for the work under the presidency of the Council. The first is the “reindustrialisation of the EU”, the second is “advance in the green transition”, the third is to “promote social and economic justice” and the fourth is “strengthening European unity”. The website of the Spanish presidency gives more information about these, just as about the key topics and about how these priorities fit into the trio programme as well.
How do the results look?
As indicated above, high-level political compromises are not the responsibility of the Council presidency – those deals are made by heads of states and governments in the European Council, even if formal decisions are to be made by the Council after that. As the current presidential period was heavily influenced by issues like those (questions related to a possible EU enlargement, remnants of the COVID pandemic, revision of the MFF, serious debates related to rule of law and the conditionality procedure, the war in Ukraine etc.), the presidency has lost some relative weight, but this does not mean that the simplifying statement in the title of this analysis would be true.
Seemingly it was much nothing for nothing, but on the level of legislation, the Spanish presidency was loaded with work and had results to be proud of. Based on the database available on the website of the presidency, collective output (statements, press releases etc.) from the presidency amount to hundreds of pieces (this includes not only legislative documents but also all kind of declarations and statements relevant to ongoing or future legislative processes), giving an overall image of a very resultful period.
The X (formally Twitter) account of the presidency was created in 2013 and got “verified” status in 2017 (telling stories about a long preparation time) and it has been constantly updated about the events of the presidency, with special attention paid to trilogue deals. Its over 24 thousand followers include many individuals and institutions relevant to EU policies and it brings hundreds of tweets about results in various legislative procedures.
Among the legislative results adopted during the Spanish presidency, You find a regulation to strengthen the European semiconductor ecosystem, a directive on energy efficiency and a final deal brokered by the presidency is expected related to the Media Freedom Act before the end of the year as well. Additionally, managing the maintaining, renewal and extension of sanctions against Russia for its aggression against Ukraine has also meant an important challenge theoretically belonging to the presidency – while the actual decisions had been made in the European Council.
What is surely left for the future?
Possibly, the most “political” task – in the competence of the presidency – during this period, lacking a result, was the management of the ongoing Article 7 proceedings against Hungary and Poland. It is still stuck in its first phase, where a 4/5 majority of the member states is needed for its advancement to the second phase. Probably because of the lack of this support, the presidency has never scheduled a vote, postponing the question to the Belgian presidency.
The website of the Belgian presidency is already online, it gives a general overview of its priorities and goals. No wonder that one of those are “Defending rule of law, democracy, and unity”…
Also, managing the accession negotiations with potential new member states (including Ukraine, based on a probable decision by the European Council in the upcoming days) will fall on the Belgian presidency.