Luxembourg's EU Council Presidency: Adapting Routines to New Circumstances

Luxembourg took over the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union on 1 July 2015 in a climate of internal and external crisis. The budgetary situation in Greece had worsened to the point where Greece’s ability to remain in the eurozone (and the EU) was at stake. At the same time, a bank-run forced Greece’s banks to temporarily close. Moreover, the refugee crisis reached a climax in 2015 and tensions between EU Member States about the handling of the situation and the distribution of refugees made a common approach difficult even in the face of humanitarian disaster. Furthermore, the Ukraine crisis simmered on. In addition, a terrorist attack in Paris brought internal security issues to the fore. Finally, following British Prime Minister David Cameron’s promise of a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union, the EU had to start a phase of renegotiation of certain policies and processes to allow Cameron to avoid Brexit. The organization of this EU presidency fell to one of the smallest – but most experienced – Member States of the European Union. It was Luxembourg’s 12th rotating presidency, which meant that many officials and some ministers had experienced at least one if not more previous presidencies. In addition, the institutional context of this presidency had also changed quite dramatically since the 11th Luxembourgish presidency in 2005 thanks to the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of the trio presidencies. If one adopts Vandecasteele and Bossuyt’s (2014) criteria for the performance of presidencies, the prospects for Luxembourg were mixed. In their review of the literature on the presidencies of the Council of the European Union, Vandecasteele and Bossuyt (2014, p. 241) identify conditions for presidency performance that fall into three categories: external context, national conditions and issue-specific characteristics. A favourable environment is seen as facilitating success, but external crises can also offer opportunities for leadership. By contrast Kietz (2007) underlines the extent to which external crises and highly sensitive dossiers challenge the ability of presidencies to reach compromise. In terms of national conditions, three appear key: good preparation, Brussels-based presidencies where the Permanent Representation has some leeway in the negotiations and a good reputation (which includes expertise and experience). Being a small state like Luxembourg can be advantageous, if it goes hand-in-hand with better communication within the ministries and a willingness to act as an honest broker, rather than defender of national interests (Vandecasteele and Bossuyt, 2004, pp. 241–242). But, as evidenced by Warntjen’s (2007) analysis of the impact of presidencies on environmental JCMS 2016 pp. 1–10 DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12410