On Wednesday, the new European Commission began its work. It will exercise its mandate until the end of October 2014 - a crucial period for Europe's evolution, due to the innovations introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. Our readers have already benefited from a comprehensive and accurate report of the Parliamentary debate, which resulted in an overwhelming majority at the investiture. I have a few considerations to add to this.
The figures speak for themselves. The liveliness of the debate appears to have astonished a number of commentators but the nature of the debate was in fact quite normal. The European Parliament represents all the different political currents, including Eurosceptics and it is normal that all the different opinions are expressed, including those that insist on rubbishing European unification, such as those provided by Nigel Farage. It is positive that all the different political tendencies have their say in the institutions and in this way they cannot claim to have had to keep their mouths shut. The Eurosceptic presence in Strasbourg corresponds to its public support. The majority of the 137 votes cast against the new European Commission do not represent the enemies of European construction but rather those that want to see this construction done differently and based on other principles, whether these principles come from the far left or extreme right. In both cases, the figures speak for themselves.
The Greens and the three “main political families”. The Greens voted against the new Commission but it is a particular case in point. Daniel Cohn-Bendit once again played his favourite card and denounced what he considered as the hypocrisy of the groups voting in favour (claiming that they were doing this on behalf of a political strategy), whilst not agreeing amongst themselves. Mr Cohn-Bendit was brilliant, as usual, but he knows only too well that the new Commission is made up of three political forces (the EPP, Socialists and Liberals), as is the majority in the Parliament.
This is a, “coalition of three big families” (Guy Verhofstadt). Each group holds onto its autonomy, and its support is subject to conditions clearly outlined by Mr Schulz (on behalf of the Socialists) and Mr Verhofstadt (on behalf of the Liberals). Mr Cohn-Bendit - whose support for European unity in itself is unquestionable - spoke just before the vote to explain that “we are now voting no but we might be making a mistake; if this is the case, we will say that it is”. He illustrated the areas in which he wanted progress to be made: climate, tough financial regulation and several other points.
The Socialists make their case. Outside the session proceedings, the president of the Socialist Group, Martin Schulz, explained how he saw things: “the EU does not operate according to left-to-right logic. There are 12 socialist governments in Europe, seven commissioners out of 27 (including three vice presidents) and 184 MEPs out of a total of 736. We are a governing and not an opposition party and although we remain critical and attentive with regard to the Commission, we confer our confidence on the college on the basis of the hearings and the new framework agreement on a closer relationship between the Commission and Parliament”.
For further information about this new framework agreement, see the following pages in this publication. It should also be pointed out that the French members of the Socialist Group did not vote yes, as did the rest of the group, but chose to abstain. In fact, no-one or almost no-one even noticed this and it was necessary to go to the personal blog of Harlem Désir to find out why: “the new commissioners demonstrated a lack of competency and were unprepared. This will lead an unprecedented weakening in the European executive … this confirms the choice of a minimalist Europe submerged by the prevailing liberal dominance”. According to certain commentators, internal politics forged this position.
Individual cases. Several parliamentarians expressed their opinions about one or other of the commissioners. Four of them were spared a critical barracking and even earned some specific compliments: Michel Barnier, Kristalina Georgieva, Joaquín Almunia and Maroš Sefèoviè. The danger of conflicts of competency between certain commissioners was highlighted. Such a development would strengthen the personal role of President Barroso and compromise the collegial nature of the Commission. Nonetheless, the strength and role of José Manuel Barroso in the renewed and global European institutional system was not criticised by everyone. After the vote, Andrew Duff (whose most obvious characteristic is to be British and a convinced supporter of Community Europe) declared that the new treaty bestows the most powerful presidency of the Commission on Mr Barroso than ever before. Mr Duff also explained that the new president's powers are much greater than those enjoyed by Jacques Delors in the past, because Mr Barroso has far more tools in hand and could prove to be an excellent president if he chooses. Mr Duff did, however, explain that his group would not be giving the Commission president “carte blanche”.
This column will be returning to the aspects regarding the different commissioners, including the case of Catherine Ashton, whom we would like to see acting as a European foreign affairs minister but who must in fact develop a European foreign policy gradually over the years. (F.R./transl.fl)