It was before a hostile Chamber that the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, defended, on Thursday 4 July in Strasbourg, in the European Parliament, the package of appointments to key posts in the European Union agreed between the Heads of State or Government earlier this week (see EUROPE 12287/1).
Mr Tusk was straightforward from the start. "To some, the Parliament represents genuine European democracy because of its directly elected Members, while to others it is rather the European Council, because of the strong democratic legitimacy of the leaders (...) In the end, we must respect each other and cooperate with each other", he said. Indeed, as Mr Tusk well knows, this is a bitter pill for Parliament to swallow (see EUROPE 12287/2).
Then the President of the European Council showed his cards, recalling that he had met several times with the leaders of the political groups to ensure that "the decisions are truly common". They were able to be taken on time and much more quickly than five years ago, he noted.
"I believe they are good choices", explained Mr Tusk, focusing on the gender balance of the appointments package, which proposes two women and two men in key posts. "This is a very positive change. Europe is not only talking about women, it is choosing women", he said.
"It took us three days, because I wanted to be sure that every Member State, big or small, from every corner of Europe, was on board when it came to the future leadership of the Union", he continued.
Anticipating criticism, he acknowledged that the representation of Eastern European countries in EU governance should indeed be improved.
Not forgetting the ongoing disputes in Parliament, the President of the European Council has tried to appease the environmentalists, pointing to the importance of their presence in the EU's decision-making bodies. "Therefore, I will appeal to all my partners to involve the Greens in the nominations, even though there is still no European Council leader from this party", he said.
Mr Tusk believes in the appointment of environmentalists to the post-Juncker Commission.
"A very serious political conflict between the EU Council and Parliament"
Nothing has been done about it. Parliament clearly remains very attached to the system of top candidates ('Spitzenkandidaten') and considers that it has been imposed the choice of Member States at the expense of that of European citizens, to hear the political groups.
"You have opened a very serious political conflict between the EU Council and Parliament over who decides in Europe", said EPP group Vice-President Esteban González Pons.
The Spanish representative did not mince his words. "You dared to say who we should appoint to head this Parliament and even how long we should divide the Presidency between political groups. You have reached the point of deciding who will be President of the European Central Bank, as if it were another political position. This is simply called democratic coarseness! You proved the Eurosceptics right!", he said.
The EPP group will still support Christian Democrat Ursula Von der Leyen's candidacy for President of the Commission, showing "responsibility", he assured, but the EU Council and the nominated candidate will have to negotiate a programme with Parliament.
The S&D group will be very demanding regarding the roadmap for the next Commission. "We will not support any candidate who intends to remain immobile with respect to the need for economic governance reforms. Social policies must be strengthened", warned the group's President, Iratxe García of Spain.
As for the President of the Renew Europe (RE) group, Romanian Dacian Cioloș, he called for a democratisation of the appointment process for key posts and recalled his group's willingness to organise a conference on the future of the EU (see EUROPE 12288/3). To initiate such a reflection would, in his opinion, make it possible not to be "in the grip of sterile fights and exchanges of views".
The strategic agenda is resurfacing
During the debate, the Greens/EFA group revisited Parliament's strategic agenda for the next interinstitutional cycle and the deadlock in discussions between the four political groups negotiating it (see EUROPE 12288/2). For environmentalists, while it is legitimate to criticise Heads of State or Government, it is also in Parliament that the will has been lacking and, if Parliament emerges weakened, it will have to attack itself first and foremost.
"This agreement on a project contract would have enabled the groups involved to appoint a person directly resulting from the elections to represent him or her as President of the European Commission", said the group's co-President, Belgian Philippe Lamberts.
According to him, faced with a "solid and coherent project, a credible personality to embody it, all supported by a large majority including the political forces that won the elections", the European Council would have had no choice but to accept in order to avoid "a sterile confrontation with Parliament, a confrontation from which it would not have emerged as a winner".
The Belgian elected representative then attacked the majority groups in Parliament which, in his opinion, implicitly agreed to "become the executors of decisions taken elsewhere, in the European Council".
Marco Zanni, the President of the Identity and Democracy (ID) group, accused his colleagues of "hypocrisy", inviting them, if they really want to make Parliament's voice heard and defend the Spitzenkandidat process, to oppose, in mid-July, the appointment of Mrs Von der Leyen as the Commission's head.
In a very brief speech at the end of the debate and under the booing of some MEPs, Donald Tusk only wished that the two EU institutions could cooperate and both take their responsibilities. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)