Improving our advocacy towards the Council and Member States

On Tuesday 24 May we held our second policy and advocacy networking lunch meeting with our members about effective advocacy towards EU decision-makers. Joining us for an exchange of views were Tatiana Esposito, social attaché at the Permanent Representation of Italy to the EU, Marie-Louise Lindorfer, Head of Unit of the unit for Employment and Social Policy of the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU and Pawel Nalewajko, in charge of the coordination of the work of the Council Working Party on Fundamental Rights, Citizens’ Rights and Free Movement of Persons (FREMP).

The result was a fruitful discussion which helped us to better understand the way the Council, Member States’ Permanent Representations and the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU work, providing us with a series of useful tips to improve the way the social NGO family works with these key actors.

As social NGOs we tend to focus more on the European Parliament – a more accessible institution that is also open to our suggestions. However, the Council and the Parliament are co-legislators, which means that legislation has to be agreed upon by both institutions. If they have very different positions, it is difficult to reach a compromise, putting in jeopardy the adoption of a legislative file. We have seen this happen before, such as with the Maternity Leave Directive. The advice we received during our networking lunch was to work with Member States and the Council before their positions are settled to try to influence their decision-making process and ensure that the two co-legislators’ positions are closer to ours, and each other’s.

Our guests highlighted the importance of bearing in mind the timing and importance of our messages to them.

Firstly, timing is crucial when putting forward our proposals. We need to make sure that Ministers receive our positions at least two weeks before they meet. In order to really influence the programme of the trios of rotating EU Presidencies we need to deliver our recommendations and messages at least one and a half years before the first Presidency starts.

Secondly, the quality of our proposals really matters. We should prioritise the various issues we work on and highlight the most pressing or achievable problems. Presenting our proposals in a concise format is key for them to be examined and possibly taken on board. It is also important that we tailor and personalise our messages, especially when addressing Member States. Adapting our messages to their position and national political, social and economic contexts can make a difference and ensure we are heard.

We were also encouraged to remind Members States and the Council of their duties and obligations rising from commitments taken in previous meetings (for example, by referring to their Council Conclusions) to act for better social outcomes and more equality. Engaging more with the trios of rotating Presidencies and Members States’ Permanent Representations in Brussels while also mobilising national members to work with national governments is vital to achieve results, and we should all make greater effort in this regard.