The European Commission is set to propose a sweeping reform to the EU’s decision-making process Tuesday by seeking to prevent abstentions in secretive committees and revealing countries’ voting positions.

The legislative proposal focuses on an obscure area of the EU’s legislative process known as comitology and is spearheaded by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. He has railed against member countries saddling the Commission with key decisions on controversial matters such as approvals for pesticides and genetically modified crops.

Comitology refers to committees of experts from the Commission and national governments, who are meant to take technical decisions on matters such as anti-dumping rules and food safety. But for some, the closed-door process has run its course, symbolizing a democratic deficit.

In a prime source of frustration for Juncker, major countries can abstain from a decision, effectively forcing Brussels to take the political flak. Transparency will also prove to be an explosive issue — as countries traditionally do not relish revealing positions on comitology topics, which range from toxic diesel emissions to atomic decommissioning.

According to three sources with direct knowledge of Tuesday’s proposal, the Commission will seek to tackle the problem at the point when comitology arrives at the so-called appeal committee, where decisions go if there is no majority after a first round of voting.

The first idea is to end the current system whereby abstaining member countries are given weight when calculating a qualified majority — equivalent to 55 percent of countries representing 65 percent of the bloc’s population. Such a move would help save the Commission from having to make a final decision in case of abstentions.

Glyphosate fiasco

This scenario took place last month when member countries failed to reach a qualified majority to approve three genetically modified strains of maize in the EU, primarily because of Germany’s abstention. A similar situation arose in June last year when representatives of the EU’s national governments failed to come to an agreement on the reapproval of glyphosate, the active substance in Monsanto’s ubiquitous herbicide Roundup. In the end, the Commission extended the license for glyphosate to the end of 2017.

Juncker’s proposal will also focus on a so-called “second referral” to the appeal committee. In other words, if there is no qualified majority during an initial appeal, EU states will be made to vote again with the idea of reaching a consensus. Finally, the Commission will propose forcing countries to reveal their voting positions.

This part of the proposal is far from guaranteed success. “Will it go anywhere is a big question,” said one source who had seen the proposal. “Responsibility is a heavy matter.”

The reform will need approval from national capitals and the European Parliament.

Click Here: Aston Villa Shop

Multinational businesses on Monday raised their concerns ahead of the proposal. They argue more transparency will encourage governments to pander to public opinion on controversial issues like pesticides.

“As the world is looking to Europe to lead on evidence-based decision-making, we must not let politics trump science,” said Nathalie Moll, secretary-general of EuropaBio, which represents companies in the pharmaceutical, chemical and agricultural sectors. EuropaBio has also signed a statement on Tuesday’s proposal with 18 other industry associations asking the Commission to “consider the impact that moving away from a science-based system would have on research, innovation and investment.”

By contrast, environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth said Monday that there is a “lack of trust” in the scientific basis for decisions and these should be subject to more democratic scrutiny.

“Potentially controversial proposals are not published until the Commission takes the final decision. The votes are held in secret and no information is provided about who represented the member states and how individual countries voted,” the groups said in a joint statement. “This situation is untenable. It compromises the EU’s democratic credentials and undermines the protection of public health and the environment.”