A number of question marks still remain. The brief summary on some of the elements characterising the Barroso II Commission, published in this column yesterday, was kept to the bare essentials. There are so many innovations, which are sometimes so revolutionary that only experience on the ground will shed light on the whole question.
“Close cooperation” to be clarified. The most spectacular revolution is obviously the one that confers on a vice-president of the Commission a supplementary triple role of high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, president of the External Relations Council and head of the Joint Diplomatic Service. This revolution is so audacious that it leaves one feeling heady and asking to what extent governments were really aware of what they were actually deciding.
Now is not the time, however, to be analysing all potential repercussions. Mr Barroso is striving to define specific aspects on how the Commission works. In her new role, Catherine Ashton will obviously touch on all aspects of reciprocal relations with her counterparts from third countries, including the questions of further enlargement, aid to developing countries, international cooperation, areas which fall within the remit of other commissioners. How can misunderstandings and demarcation conflicts be avoided? Mr Barroso's chosen formula is the simplest possible: the commissioners responsible for these domains will take action “in close cooperation” with the vice-president/high representative. At the beginning, it was difficult to go further than this. It remains to be seen how close cooperation will function in practice. The Barroso formula does not actually cover the remit of the commissioner for external trade (Karel De Gucht). Perhaps it takes into account the fact that this area of responsibility for negotiating on behalf of the EU falls to the Commission itself. The idea of building “groups of commissioners” in certain sectors, who would, in advance, agree between themselves on the projects and positions to submit to the College, was not retained (- was this decision made to safeguard the collegiate nature of the Commission?) The problem of close co-operation, however, still exists.
Logical innovations. The administrative separation between energy and transport is logical because these domains are so complicated and specific. There were also two commissioners already there. The transfer of the Galileo project to the industry portfolio is also perfectly understandable. The separation between climate and environment is, at first glance, less obvious (EUROPE 10029 on specific tasks in these two portfolios). On the other hand, it appears quite logical to bring together consumer affairs, health, the pharmaceutical sector and biotechnology into a single portfolio. The disappearance of a specific portfolio for the communication strategy should also be underlined. This could have led to confusion between transparency (necessary), information, propaganda and self-satisfaction. The communication and publications remit continues and has been given to Ms Reding. The separation between development and humanitarian aid appears to pose a number of interpretation problems, which are currently being examined (see EUROPE yesterday on Louis Michel, the former commissioner on the subject, and the response from Commissioner De Gucht).
From Mr Barrot to Ms Reding. The very sensitive issue of immigration, illegal immigrants and the right of asylum merits a few words. Jacques Barrot has managed this burning sector with an admirable balance, firmly asserting the European principles of providing a welcome and justice to those who need it, while taking into account the demand for Community solidarity in the specific situation of certain member states (see this column in EUROPE 9969). If we still wanted to play the game of reporting back on the different commissioners, I would give Mr Barrot a very good report. He is leaving the Commission but he will still have an important role to play in European issues, given that his action in Brussels proved so conclusive (without him, Galileo would still not exist).
In the Barroso II Commission, his role, for the main part, goes to Viviane Reding, who is now entering her third mandate. She has proved that there is no link between the size of one's country of origin and the importance of the Community work one undertakes (at the time she was put in charge of a new portfolio, information society and new media). She succeeded in taking effective action to the advantage of end-users by dismantling the restrictive rules of the telecoms giants and obtaining significantly lower prices. She subsequently asserted a dynamic and efficient image of a cultural Europe. She would also get a very good report!
One person leaves and the other takes up his mantle: the image of the Commission and its perennity. Other figures manage to leave their mark and will have new senior posts, such as Olli Rehn; others will return with specific responsibilities, such as Michel Barnier, and others will arrive with a lot of ideas, such as Karel De Gucht. Parliament can now have its say.
(F.R./transl.fl)