The Presidency compromise: who speaks for the Commission?
You are a policy officer in a Commission DG working on a legislative file now in its second trilogue. Six weeks remain before the final negotiating session. Your Head of Unit is on leave for three of them and told you before leaving to “keep things moving, but do not commit us to anything”. The Council presidency has circulated a compromise text that deletes the delegated-acts provision and replaces it with a five-year review clause. Three member states have entered reservations; two others back the presidency. The Parliament rapporteur's office wants an informal meeting in four days and expects the Commission to indicate a view. An industry association has meanwhile written a twelve-page letter to your Director-General, copying two MEPs, and a journalist has emailed asking you to confirm “whether the Commission is softening its position”. The Legal Service cannot brief you for ten days. Your Director-General's cabinet wants a one-page note by Friday.
1. What do you actually do in the first 48 hours, and in what order?
Read the worked answer
The instinct is to answer the loudest external request first - the rapporteur, the association, the journalist. That is the wrong order, because all three need the same thing: a clear internal position you do not yet have.
1. Establish what is institutional and what is personal. Read the presidency text line by line against the Commission's adopted proposal and identify where the Commission has a formal, stated position (its proposal, its communication to the colegislators) versus where you merely have a technical preference. The delegated-acts deletion is likely a red line; the review clause may be negotiable. Never present your own view as the Commission's.
2. Fix the Legal Service bottleneck instead of accepting it. Ask for a narrow written question - is the presidency's review clause compatible with the enabling article? - with a short deadline. Parallel written requests are normal and cheaper than a ten-day gap.
3. Protect your Head of Unit and yourself. Send her a short factual email: what has arrived, what you have and have not done, and the date by which a decision is needed. Do not create a situation she discovers on return.
4. Build the cabinet note as options, not a fait accompli. Three options at most, each with the substantive consequence, the legal risk and the recommended line, and an explicit column for “decision required by”.
The test of the first 48 hours is whether anyone could later say you substituted your judgement for the institution's.
2. How do you handle the rapporteur's request for an informal meeting in four days, and what do you say about the Commission's position?
Read the worked answer
Decline the meeting and you create a bigger problem: the Parliament will read it as the Commission going quiet on its own file and will route around you. Accept it, but control what it is.
Before the meeting: confirm in writing that it is a technical, informal exchange at working level and that you will listen to the rapporteur's concerns. Tell your hierarchy that it is happening and what you will and will not say.
In the meeting: the Commission's role in trilogue is not to negotiate on behalf of Council or Parliament. You can legitimately: explain factually how the presidency text interacts with the Commission proposal; set out the technical consequences of the review clause; ask questions; take note of the rapporteur's priorities so the Commission can work constructively afterwards. You cannot indicate a Commission view that has not been agreed, still less shift it.
Language matters. Avoid any formulation that can be quoted as a change of position - “we could live with”, “we are flexible on”. Use: “The Commission's position is set out in its proposal. The presidency text is the presidency's text and we are assessing it, including with the Legal Service.”
Afterwards: write a short debrief the same day - what was said, what was requested, what you did not commit to - and send it upward. If the rapporteur asks for a formal Commission position, say that is not something you can give at working level and that you will refer it, then actually refer it with a date.
What would change the answer: if the cabinet has already given you a line, the meeting becomes the vehicle for delivering it, and someone more senior should attend.
3. The journalist wants confirmation that the Commission is “softening”; the association has copied two MEPs on a twelve-page letter. How do you respond to each, and how do you keep the two consistent?
Read the worked answer
Treat them as one problem. They will be compared against each other, and against anything said in the trilogue.
The journalist. Do not confirm or deny the framing - answering “no, we are not softening” still validates the premise and creates a headline. Do not go off the record. Forward to the spokesperson and reply that media queries are handled centrally, with the factual line: the Commission has made a proposal; the presidency has circulated a compromise; the Commission is assessing it in the ordinary way. If asked for documents, route it to the transparency/access-to-documents process rather than deciding yourself.
The association. Do not negotiate the substance of a twelve-page letter by return email, and do not respond faster because MEPs were copied - that rewards escalation. Acknowledge receipt procedurally, note the file reference, and offer a technical exchange with the responsible unit, checking whether the organisation is on the transparency register and whether the meeting will be published. The copied MEPs may contact you directly; give them the same factual line, not a version of the file's internal debates.
Consistency rule. One set of facts, one vocabulary: “proposal”, “compromise text”, “assessment ongoing”. The failure mode in these files is not saying the wrong thing once; it is saying two slightly different things to two audiences a day apart.
Escalate early: tell your Head of Unit and the cabinet that both contacts have occurred, because the Director-General will be asked about the letter.