Brussels, 09/02/2010 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 9 February the new European Commission was approved by the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The EP voted in favour of José Manuel Barroso's team by a very large majority (488 votes in favour, 137 votes against, with 72 abstentions). The new Commission will begin work on Wednesday the 10 February and its mandate will expire on 31 October 2014. A few minutes before the vote, the heads of the main political groups - the EPP, the Socialist Group (S&D) and the Liberal Group (ALDE) - announced that their members would be supporting the new Commission. The Greens/EFA, the GUE/NGL, the Europe Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD) and non-attached members voted against (according to the presidents of their groups), while the Conservative Group (ECR) abstained. Although support from the EPP had never been in doubt, the Socialist Group had hesitated for a long time, according to its president, Martin Schulz, from Germany, who spoke a few minutes before the vote. It was ultimately in the name of “realism” that the group decided to give its confidence to the new Commission, in the knowledge that it had to cooperate with the main political families at the EP (and not enter into ideological warfare) if they really wanted to change things for the good of citizens, explained Schulz. He did, nonetheless, give Barroso a warning: “Take the support from our group seriously, as well as the wish for a social Europe, because the EU will be social or it will fail”. Guy Verhofstadt expressed the support from his group, ALDE, but underlined the fact that this support was “conditional”. The liberals want the Commission to again become the engine of the EU, that uses “its potential contained in its right of initiative” and they want it to “enforce member states to do what needs to be done”, for example, with regard to economic governance, climate change and humanitarian aid etc. Verhofstadt stated that “we expect clear and firm proposals from you in all these domains”. Daniel Cohn-Bendit confirmed that the Greens/EFA could not support this Commission. He explained that this did not mean they were anti-European and warned Barroso not to try and play that game with them. On the contrary, the Greens propose their “full support” in all areas where the Commission attempts to move the European project forward with ambition, even where member states are not expected to initially agree. Timothy Kirkhope explained that his group (ECR) had abstained due to the “mediocrity” of certain commissioners but affirmed that Barroso is the “right leader”. Lothar Bisky confirmed the opposition of the GUE/NGL and underlined the liberal and anti-social vision of this Commission, whilst Nigel Farage, the head of the EFD Group rubbished European unification. Hans-Peter Martin (NI) explained that his refusal to support the new Commission was mainly because of the “poor qualifications” of the commissioners.
The draft resolutions presented by the Greens, the GUE/NGL and the ECR to explain their opposition to the Barroso II Commission were all rejected just before the vote.
José Manuel Barroso announces “change” and a work programme based on his “policy guidelines”
of September 2009 - “The social dimension would be taken into account”
In his speech presenting the new college on Tuesday morning, at the plenary, Barroso struck a number of different notes in an effort to win the confidence of the EP. First of all, he praised the “quality” and “experience” of his new team. He explained that “the team presented to you today is ready to confront the challenges facing it. It combines experience and new ideas, and reflects the wide range of approaches and feelings, which make Europe this formidable land of ideas. It is a team you can vote for in confidence and a team that deserves your full support”.
He then reiterated his determination to develop a “special relationship” with the Parliament. He pointed out that the Commission and the EP are “the two Community institutions par excellence, with a particular responsibility to ensure that the EU is more than the sum of its parts”.
Even more important, was the fact that the president also announced that there would be a change in relation to his first mandate, which, as we are aware, was largely dominated by the institutional debate surrounding the new treaty. The Commission president affirmed: “I refuse to believe that things will resume their usual course. Our co-citizens would not understand that after these years of institutional debate, we will essentially continue as before. The challenges now confronting us, such as the economic and financial crisis, as well as climate change and energy security, are simply too big for us to not change our way of doing things”. He asserted that the economic and social situation in the EU “demands a radical shift from the status quo” and that the Barroso Commission is prepared to grant more importance to the social dimension. Barroso said that “the social dimension shall be properly addressed in our work”. He accepts that a social impact analysis is needed when there is a new legislative proposal (this commitment is also part of the new framework agreements between the EP and the Commission, in which the main elements were approved by MEPs on Tuesday). The president also portrayed himself as the pro-active defender of a more ambitious European social policy because, he explained, “without a social dimension in Europe, we will have a legitimacy problem amongst citizens … the social market economy - I support the social market economy very much and we have to work together. It is not the Commission that has to do provide the convincing arguments regarding the social dimension but the member states. Some countries believe that Europe is only a market and the social dimension is up to them. I do not agree because if we are to win the emotional accession of our citizens to the European project, we need a social policy that combines what we can do at a European and national level. We need to avoid any fights over questions of competency”, added Barroso in his reply at the end of the debate.
He also underlined the fact that Europe must become stronger on the international stage - “the EU counts when we speak with a strong and united voice. When the European interest is clearly defined and vigorously defended - in trade, for example, and competition policy”. On the other hand, the president explained that it would succeed less on the international scene if it only acted according to national interests and without coordination rather than defending the collective interests of the EU27. Barroso declared: “We therefore have to ask ourselves whether we are doing everything we can to define and defend the European interest. Frankly, I think we have to do more”. On this point, Barroso outlined his “ambition”. “I am convinced that if Europe does not act together, we will be insignificant on the world stage. I will repeat this on 11 February to heads of state and government”.
The policy guidelines presented to the EP in September 2009 (which place a priority on an economic crisis exit policy, the fight against climate change, developing energy efficiency, growth and social cohesion, the creation of the freedom and security area, and strengthening Europe's place in the world) constitute “a good starting point” for developing a “long-term vision” for the EU, explained Barroso. He also said that these priorities would be translated into a concrete work programme for the new Commission.
“Full confidence” from the EPP - Socialist Group accuses Barroso of seeking to “divide to rule” more effectively - Liberals demand that Barroso is “more ambitious” - criticism from Greens
During Tuesday morning's debate, Joseph Daul (from France) expressed the total confidence of the EPP Group in Barroso and his new team. He stated that “we share the main political guidelines of this Commission, as well of the remedies it is proposing to confront the main principles and challenges facing Europeans”. Daul also said that under the leadership of Barroso and his experienced commissioners, “this Commission is well armed for attacking European problems”. He also welcomed the “exercise of modern democracy”, constituted by the hearings of the commissioners, but appealed for an improvement in the procedures for the next Commission. He regretted that certain political families had made the hearings into “courtrooms”. Daul said that he wanted an exemplary partnership between the EP and Commission and wanted things to change in the relationship with the Council, which had to “understand that Parliament is, since the Lisbon Treaty, on an equal footing with itself. The example of Swift demonstrates to us the extent of what progress we need to achieve”. The head of the EPP Group severely criticised the EU's external action over the past few weeks. “From Haiti to Iran, from Afghanistan to the Yemen, from Cuba to transatlantic relations, the European voice is not at a level that we would wish”, he explained in his address to Catherine Ashton. “The high representative must embody both presence and ambition”, explained Daul who also said: “Let's take aim again and begin on a good footing”.
Even the Socialist Group (S&D) voted for the new Commission, despite Martin Schulz, the head of the group, not having demonstrated any tenderness for Barroso or most of the commissioners. The president prevented commissioners-designate speaking openly during the parliamentary hearings, in an effort to avoid any mention of ideas not approved by Barroso. Schulz said that “only certain commissioners, such as Joaquín Almunia, Michel Barnier, Maros Sefkovic and Kristalina Georgieva, demonstrated the courage to speak openly and revealed their real profile”. The German MEP also deplored the “incoherence” displayed in the distribution of portfolios, which he put down to Barroso's seeking to divide and rule more effectively (divide et impera). The leader of the S&D Group explained: “There will be a lot of conflict over areas of competency and who will be the arbitrator? Obviously, the president will have the last word”. He also criticised Barroso for seeking to “transform a collegial institution into a presidential body”. (H.B./transl.fl)
On behalf of the Liberal Group (ALDE), Guy Verhofstadt said he expected three things of the new Commission: - it must be the driver of European integration, “something that was not the case over the previous five years”: the Commission should not always seek compromises with member states before making proposals; - it must operate “as a College”: having a strong president is all well and good, but having a Commission that operates like a “coalition” of the three main political families is even better, he said; - it must take ambitious, credible measures to address the economic crisis, including on socio-economic governance. “Don't listen to member states (apart from the Spanish Presidency which has good ideas), which think that loose coordination is enough. Your proposal on the EU2020 strategy will be of paramount importance,” he said.
A “coalition of hypocrites” (EPP, S&D and ALDE) will vote for Barroso II, railed Daniel Cohn-Bendit, joint leader of the Greens/EFA. “Just days before St Valentine's Day, they are saying to Barroso: 'Je t'aime, moi non plus' (Ed: referring to the Gainsbourg song, which may roughly translate as 'I love you, I love you not') - but they vote for him. Even the Socialists are voting for him. Mr Schulz, this is great political strategy,” he said. “Most of the commissioners we interviewed in the hearings had neither determination nor vision nor ambition,” the French MEP complained. There must be an end to talking in general terms and shutting one's eyes: “The world reality is that Europe just does not cut it”. Expressing confidence in this Commission was “unworthy” of this EP, Cohn-Bendit concluded.
Jan Zahradil, speaking on behalf of the Conservative Group (ECR), said that the group backed Barroso's reform agenda and his new team (but he had not yet announced that the group would abstain in the vote, see above).
For the GUE/NGL, group leader Lothar Bisky was unequivocal: the new Commission was going to continue the same errors of the first Barroso Commission, which did not take a single initiative to tackle social exclusion or poverty in the EU. “Do not count on our support,” he said.
Nigel Farage (EFD) described Barroso II as the “new government of Europe” which had, however, “no democratic legitimacy” and which contains “at least ten former Communists”. There was no doubt, this group will vote against the Commission, Farage said.
Zoltán Balczó, speaking for the non-attached MEPs, called into question the capabilities of various commissioners. If we vote against this Commission, that does not mean that we against Europe, he noted.
The remainder of Tuesday morning's debate demonstrated that MEPs' views on the composition of the new Commission were, at the very least, ambivalent: the allocation of portfolios had not been the best, regretted Lajos Bokros (CRE, Hungary). From the same group, Polish MEP Miros³aw Piotrowski expressed his scepticism over the abilities of some of the commissioners-designate. Werner Langen (EPP, Germany) was unequivocal in asking Commission President Barroso if he intended to give up the presidential style which he seemed to prefer in favour of a return to the Collegial system. However, of the MEPs who spoke, most were more encouraging with regard to the new Commission and its president. Spanish Socialist Alejandro Cercas, for example, said: we are going to judge you on the results of your policies, but if you meet your commitments, we can promise you our loyalty. We have confidence in you, said Italian Socialist Gianluca Susta, since we need the Commission to bring about the new Europe that has been born from the Lisbon Treaty. “Dare!” urged Alain Lamassoure (EPP, France), because Europe “needs a driver, ambition, and a major federating project … to make up for time lost in the interminable institutional debate”. Lamassoure expressed his displeasure that the new full-time president of the European Council has “chosen to disappear”, with the result that “no one knows who is steering the ship of Europe”. From the same group, Austrian MEP Othmar Karas argued for a new partnership between Commission and EP “in opposition to nationalism, protectionism and extremism, and, in support of the sustainability of all policies”. (H.B./L.G./transl.rh/rt)