Complicated presidency. The appointment of the new European Commission president - the most spectacular aspect of the voting that is now underway to renew the European Parliament - is, at first sight, an elementary operation. The president will be the person backed by the political group that is confirmed by majority - in other words, the EPP or the Socialist group. It's an elementary operation at first sight only, however. In fact, the situation is very complex:
(1) the formal appointment is up to the European Council (which brings together the heads of state and government of all the member states). Its president, Herman Van Rompuy, has underlined that the Parliament cannot appoint the Commission president itself because the Treaty states: The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. However, Mr Van Rompuy is not in a hurry. He has said that he wants to meet the president of the Parliament and the heads of the political groups over the course of June, with the aim of seeking a balanced formula together that might reduce the risk of a clash between the institutions;
(2) the Parliament does not agree in the slightest. It believes that, in this area, the European Council only has the formal power to state the name of the person who has been appointed by the parliamentary group that comes top in the elections. What is more, the names of the possible winners are well-known - Jean-Claude Juncker and Martin Schulz. Schulz has said that, if the heads of government dare to appoint another name, this new person will never obtain a majority in the new Parliament. And during a debate between the five candidates for Commission president, Schulz stated: “The future president of the European Commission is to be found among us”.
Is this just an issue of formal sensitivity? Not at all! Some heads of state, led by David Cameron, firmly intend to have the last word on who shall be the president of the future Commission. They at least intend to negotiate it.
Yet the fact is that the European Parliament's agreement is obligatory.
A bizarre opinion poll. There is a seeming complication. On Thursday 15 May, at the end of the debate between the five candidates (Jean-Claude Juncker, Martin Schulz, Guy Verhofstadt, Ska Keller and Alexis Tsipras), an opinion poll among Twitter followers said that the most convincing competitor was Alexis Tsipras (50% of the votes) - far ahead of Martin Schulz (5%) and Jean-Claude Juncker (3%)! (see EUROPE 11081). It is obvious that most of those who were at the debate did not participate in this strange opinion poll.
A third name? Here's another question. Could the new Commission president not be the candidate from the parliamentary group that has the biggest number of votes? Yes, according to what Guy Verhofstadt said in an interview with EUROPE (see EUROPE 11083). It is true that the parliamentary group that backs him is making progress - but it won't be able to move beyond third place. Nevertheless, Verhofstadt stated that he will try to bring together a maximum of MEPs, and that he is running for the presidency of the Commission and not another post. How will he do this? By obtaining the support of other parliamentary groups? Or by compromises to be discussed when the time is right? What is certain is that Europe needs him and that he is indispensable. His innovative programme proves it.
To demolish the EU from within? The eurosceptics and those who are disappointed with the EU are not voting. This is what the observers believe. Yet Marine Le Pen, who is probably the most radical adversary of European unity, has chosen an opposite way to abstention - to demolish the EU from within, or in other words, to participate in the electoral campaign with maximum dynamism so as to obtain the most MEPs, in France and in the member states where she has found allies. Her objective is to set up a powerful parliamentary group within the European Parliament that is not only able to block the progress of European integration, but also, and especially, to demolish what exists. In the American Time magazine (26 May issue), she explained that her objective is to block European integration, which she considers a failure and a totalitarian structure. She does not believe the EU is capable of being reformed and she believes it should disappear - to be replaced with a group of free and sovereign nation states.
It is clear that, if the Le Pen project gains ground, France and the other member states that would pursue a similar project would be free to leave the EU and to obtain the regime of associated country, as exists for others. But I don't believe that this is what the French people want.
I am convinced that a united Europe will overcome the current difficulties.
(FR)