President Tusk has called an informal meeting of the European Council of 27 on 23 February to discuss constitutional questions after Brexit. Andrew Duff, Visiting Fellow at the European Policy Centre and President of the Spinelli Group, reflects on the agenda and makes proposals on the following interconnected matters:

• Seats in the EP: Instead of sticking to a mathematical formula that it had agreed to follow for the allocation of seats per member state ahead of the 2019 elections, the EP has given into the pressure of those states that are at present over-privileged in terms of seats (IT, HU, PT). Duff argues that the Council should at a minimum guarantee the introduction of the formula in good time for the 2024 elections.
• Transnational lists: In September 2017, President Juncker argued that transnational lists would bring “democracy and clarity” to Europe. On 7 February, however, the EP voted down the proposal on transnational lists by 368 votes to 274. How the European Council deals with the matter on 23 February, however, is inextricably tied up with its attitude to the election of Mr Juncker’s eventual successor.
• Spitzenkandidaten: In 2014, the experiment worked to some extent in stirring up interest. Meanwhile, some oppose the Parliament’s bid to extend its constitutional role beyond the Treaty. At the end of the day what really matters is to find the best possible successor to Mr Juncker, and that choice will be consensual between Parliament and Council.
• Presidencies: The controversy surrounding the Spitzenkandidaten has a direct bearing on a more fundamental question, namely the future of the two presidencies of the Commission and Council. If the two presidents disagree, there is an immediate political, even constitutional problem. Where the two agree, there is unnecessary (and costly) duplication. The division of powers between them is unclear both to the EU citizen and to third countries.
• Number of commissioners: A proposal to revert to the Lisbon formula of a tighter Commission serving the common interest of the Union would be welcomed by those who want the Union to develop in the federal direction, just as it will be opposed by those who prefer to continue with a weaker executive body made up of national representatives.
• Treaty amendments? The best that can be hoped from the opening up of the debate at this informal meeting is that the institutions realise their limitations and determine to get better prepared for the next constitutional Convention than they were, frankly, for the last Convention in 2002-03. As the next round of treaty amendments is likely to come, for various reasons, during the upcoming mandate, there is no time to be wasted.

In conclusion, Duff argues that nobody can have all the answers to these complex constitutional issues. Thus, one sensible outcome of the meeting next week might be the convening of an independent group charged to reflect more fully on the strengths and weaknesses of the EU’s current constitution: it might even be invited to scope the mandate of the next Convention.

The full paper can be downloaded here, http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_8271_governeuropebetter.pdf?doc_id=1949