82 votes against, 29 votes in favour, 1 abstention. The French Commissioner-designate, Sylvie Goulard, was rejected by an overwhelming majority of MEPs from the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) and Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) committees on Thursday afternoon, 10 October.
“A humiliation”, “a mistake”... At the end of the joint meeting of the two parliamentary committees, MEPs did not spare the Commissioner-designate, nor the French President, Emmanuel Macron, who was held by many to be responsible for supporting a candidate who put France in a weak position, as Yannick Jadot (Greens/EFA, France) thinks.
“We must respect European partners”, François-Xavier Bellamy (EPP, France) told journalists, before denouncing on several occasions the pressure exerted by the Elysée on French MEPs and those of other national delegations ahead of the vote. “We could not accept; it would have sent a disastrous signal to European citizens”, Manuel Bompard (GUE/NGL, France) explained to EUROPE, referring to the remuneration received by Ms Goulard during her parliamentary mandate from the American think tank Berggruen Institute (see EUROPE 12315/1). “Now this is very bad news for France, which is making a fool of itself, and Emmanuel Macron bears full responsibility for it”, he added.
The situation of the Commissioner-designate was inextricable in the eyes of many: how can it be justified that a case (the suspicion of a parliamentary assistant's fictitious employment), which led her to resign from her post as Minister for the Armed Forces at national level, does not discourage her from becoming a Commissioner at European level? Above all, why not resign from her position as Commissioner, if she were to be charged? According to several internal sources from different political groups, if Ms Goulard had assured that she would have resigned in the event of an indictment, the vote of the parliamentarians would certainly have taken a different turn.
However, during her second hearing, Ms Goulard riled up some amongst the parliamentarians, in particular for quoting certain colleagues, such as the Belgian Guy Verhofstadt (Renew Europe) on the grounds that they also had activities outside the European Parliament.
In general, her defence of her activity with the Berggruen Institute – that it was legal from a legal point of view, but questionable from an ethical point of view – was not convincing. Before pleading “human error”, insisting that, just as a man who learns from his mistakes, the law is a process that evolves over time.
Political consequences
However, among the liberals – Ms Goulard's political family – some believe that the integrity of the Commissioner was not the primary cause of her rejection by parliamentarians. “There has been a conjunction of things”, Stéphane Séjourné (Renew Europe, France), head of the French Renaissance delegation, told a group of journalists. “Between national logic, partisan logic and the perception that France had gotten a little too much out of this Commission in this configuration”, he explained.
“It's going to be a portfolio fight”, Christophe Grudler (Renew Europe, France) told EUROPE. “There is no question of giving up anything to the French Commissioner's portfolio”, he said, fearing that in addition to seeing its candidate reprimanded, France would see its portfolio cut up by the other Member States.
It is true that, among the Members of the European Parliament, the size of the French portfolio is causing a lot of discussion. Some, particularly within the German EPP delegation, mentioned the transfer of the ‘Space and Defence’ package to the Commissioner for Transport. Others, within the S&D group, considered giving media and audiovisual policies to Bulgarian Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner-designate for Innovation and Youth (see EUROPE 12345/9). “A choice had to be made: either Ms Goulard was kept and yielded to the size of the portfolio, or Goulard was rejected, but the size of the portfolio was preserved, but not both”, an internal source analysed.
Members of Renew Europe must now meet, including the French delegation, which is facing a second setback after losing the presidency of the political group (see EUROPE 12274/33). “We need to discuss this with the group. As far as my delegation is concerned, obviously, we will be asking ourselves the question in the coming days about the political consequences of this vote”, Mr Séjourné stressed, ominously.
Ms von der Leyen's mistake
On the same day, the French President publicly attacked President-elect Ursula von der Leyen. “I proposed three names to Mrs von der Leyen. Ms von der Leyen told me, ‘I want to work with Sylvie Goulard. I know her. I know what she’s worth’”, Mr Macron told the television media. “I told Ms von der Leyen, ‘Sylvie Goulard is a woman of great integrity, I know her (...) I said, watch out, there are controversies, I know people who can create controversies’”.
According to the French President, Ms von der Leyen had indicated that the Chairmen of the EPP, S&D and Renew Europe groups supported candidate Goulard. He concluded, “I don't understand – when the President of the Commission, who has a discussion with the three group leaders and they agree on something – that it can shift like that. So I need to understand.”
In a statement issued on the same day, the President-elect said she had met the leaders of the three political groups, as well as the President of the European Parliament, in the aftermath of the French woman's rejection. Ms von der Leyen urged political leaders “accelerate” the process so that Europe can act quickly.
The cases of the S&D and the EPP
It is true that the EPP, alongside the Greens/EFA, the GUE/NGL and ID, led the revolt against the French candidate. The German delegation was very “dynamic” on the issue, several sources confirm, at the risk of damaging a college that was nevertheless led by a German from their political party, moreover. Some believe that the chairman of the EPP group, Manfred Weber, who lost the Commission presidency when the Spitzenkandidaten process was abandoned after a French push (see EUROPE 12287/1), did not particularly seek to curb the opposition.
The position of the S&D is even murkier. Rather on the offence during the first hearing of the Commissioner-designate, the group was much less aggressive during the second hearing. Christel Schaldemose (S&D, Denmark), who was bitter on 2 October, simply said that her group would monitor her integrity during her mandate. Some believe that the visit of Parliament and Social Democrat President David Sassoli (Italy) to the Elysée on Monday 7 October could have something to do with this about-face.
Thus, of the 29 votes that supported Ms Goulard, 11 should be attributed to the Social Democrats, we are told. But another party reportedly abstained. Worse yet. The Social Democrats simply would not have been present for the vote at the Legal Affairs Meeting (JURI), where the result was, again, against Ms Goulard.
Next steps
Now, all eyes turn to the Elysée, which will have to quickly present a new candidate. This will be a difficult exercise, a parliamentary source tells us, because few people had the expertise, network and language skills that Ms Goulard has.
The Committee on Legal Affairs, which is responsible for analysing the probity of the Commissioners-designate, could be mobilised as early as next week. One problem is that members of the Greens/EFA group and Renew Europe are not expected to be present, as both are in seminars.
In any case, the rejection of the French candidate, which comes after the double rejection of the Romanian and Hungarian candidates, suggests that it will be difficult to ensure a vote on the College in plenary session on 23 October next.
Some say that a delay in the Commission's entry into office would not be a problem. The Commission's approval vote for the second Barroso Commission only took place at the beginning of February 2010 (see EUROPE 10061/2). (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)