The outgoing President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, gives his opinion on the installation of the von der Leyen College and the internal dynamics of the European Parliament after the elections last May, in an exclusive interview granted to EUROPE on Wednesday 23 October. He mentioned Brexit, the migration challenge, the post-2020 EU budget, the rule of law and Martin Selmayr (remarks collected by Sophie Petitjean and Mathieu Bion).
Agence Europe – Of all the political positions you have held at national and European level, hasn't the last one been the most frustrating?
Jean-Claude Juncker – No, I never had the impression that I was not listened to, respected.
The Commission is at the service of the Member States and must respect the sentiments of the Prime Ministers who speak on behalf of their country.
I had a simple rule: 1, never give in to pressure. And 2, the Commission knows the countries, but does not recognise the flags. There is no French Commissioner, for example.
Mrs von der Leyen, who was never Prime Minister, was elected in July by a very small majority by the European Parliament, three Commissioners-designate were re-elected. It's a bad start, isn't it?
I never comment on the actions of my successors or predecessors.
I have very little to do with the forthcoming elections in the European Parliament. We'll see at the postmortem.
But I know that if I hadn't tried to talk to my old socialist and liberal friends, she wouldn't have had a majority.
[During the interview, former European Parliament President Martin Schulz called Mr Juncker, editor's note].
Do you support the idea of deleting a legislative text for a proposed text (‘one in, one out’ principle) (see EUROPE 12338/3)?
This is ambitious. We have proposed 84 fewer legislative proposals, withdrawn 142 proposals from the legislator’s table and simplified 162 acts. Can we do better? I wonder about that.
And this promise to grant the European Parliament a right of initiative?
I understand this gesture. But the treaties that give the Commission a monopoly on initiative should be changed.
Mrs von der Leyen cannot give the European Parliament a right of initiative, because this requires a revision of the Treaties. She said that if Parliament asks the Commission to take an initiative in a particular area, she would do so.
I share this approach out of respect for the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament. But the initiatives suggested by the European Parliament must not conflict with those of the Commission. If the Commission proposes – which it will not do, but I am in favour of it – to introduce a minimum wage in Europe and if Parliament says otherwise, we cannot run after two hares at the same time.
What are your thought on this new European Parliament format?
There is no longer this majority between Christian Democrats and Socialists. Even if the election results had made it possible to renew this coalition, it would not have been done because the actors are not the same.
I remain concerned about the construction of majorities in the European Parliament.
I have always been in favour of a clearly pro-European majority in Parliament based on a coalition with the Socialists, the Liberals and including the Greens in this consensual spirit. And it exists in the current Parliament.
I have also always taken the view – often against my own side – that the Commission should not act in a partisan way. If it became partisan, it would be a deviation for me. This approach, which is gaining momentum in Parliament, does not serve Europe’s interests.
What do you read into Tuesday's vote in the House of Commons on the new agreement allowing for an orderly Brexit (see EUROPE 12354/11)?
The agreement with Prime Minister Johnson was approved by the British Parliament for the first time after three failures by Mrs May. This is a remarkable progress that is underestimated.
Then Mr Johnson did not find a majority on how to translate the agreement into reality. We have a number of problems with that.
It should be recalled that the international treaty between the EU and the United Kingdom was not agreed on Thursday morning [17 October, Editor's note], before the European summit. I had two polite, but tough talks with Mr Johnson to tell him: ‘It's either that or it won't work. Call me back in an hour, because we have to give the text to the Member States’. He called me back.
Is it not a surrender of sovereignty to entrust the collection of customs duties on behalf of the EU to a non-Member State, as Mr Barnier considered in October 2018 (http://bit.ly/364MWAw )?
That's true and it's not true.
Because the way customs duties are collected is different from what was discussed with Mrs May.
In this 700-page agreement, the EU is getting what is due in the technical arrangements that accompany the arrangements in principle.
Can the United Kingdom be trusted, which is not exemplary in this respect (EUROPE 11977/26)?
I can analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the agreement, but not enter into a game that would lead me to say: ‘On this point, they gave in, and we gave in on that one’. That would destroy the agreement.
It is a rule of wisdom never to talk about ongoing negotiations.
How can we break the deadlock with Poland and Hungary on respect for the rule of law?
The EU is based on the rule of law. Those who distance themselves from this principle put themselves and others, especially small Member States, at great risk.
The rule of law is not that of the strongest, but the way we have decided to organise how we ‘live together’.
I agree with the proposal to examine respect for the rule of law in all Member States (see EUROPE 12298/2). But this does not detract from the importance to be attached to the specific situation of Poland and Hungary.
I do not see the new Commission changing its attitude.
Despite your repeated warnings, we are moving towards an agreement with a finish line in 2020 on the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework.
Every effort must be made not to delay decision-making until December 2020.
We did this in 2013 for the 2014-2021 period. As a result, the programmes could not be implemented in 2014 and 2015. If we repeat this error, we lose 2 useful years. To date, the delays accumulated in 2014 and 2015 have not been compensated for.
The actors must be able to translate European policies on the ground, such as the European Solidarity Corps, of which I am proud.
And the Commission's proposal for a budget of 1.13% of GNI is a minimum. Because, to maintain traditional policies and add new ones, the necessary budget amount is 1.14%. If we don't want to do everything, the minimum is 1.1%.
I said that the proposals of the Finnish Presidency of the Council are inapplicable (see EUROPE 12349/6).
You have proposed for Member States to decide by qualified majority on tax and foreign policy issues. Why is this existing rule not used to address the migration challenge?
Qualified majority voting was used in September 2015 for the mandatory and temporary relocation of asylum seekers (see EUROPE 11394/1). On the basis of the rules of the Treaty, we set a standard that was binding on all Member States. States have not met the standard.
I did everything I could to rally the Visegrad countries.
That was in 2015. Why not do it again today with the reform of the European asylum system?
I have long proposed to the Czechs, Hungarians and Slovaks that they should at least take unaccompanied minors into their territory.
I told the Polish Prime Minister, ‘You are not going to explain to me that, in a deeply Catholic country, millions of Poles will protest in the streets against the fact that you would take a few hundred unaccompanied children into your territory!’ He agreed, but he didn't do it.
On the asylum system, we have made seven proposals. Five are approved, two are controversial in Italy and elsewhere. I have asked the European Council to approve these five proposals. This would have prevented secondary movements. Member States have not done so (see EUROPE 12209/2).
I have proposed that Parliament should decide by qualified majority on tax and foreign policy matters. This can be done either by changing the Treaty or by using the passerelle clause of the Lisbon Treaty. No Member State has wildly applauded this proposal.
Wherever it was possible to decide by qualified majority, the European Commission has proposed the appropriate legal basis for deciding.
But the reform of the European asylum system is now a matter for the European Council...
Too many issues go back to the European Council. The European Council is not a legislator. The Council of Ministers is.
The avenue that would have allowed us to move forward was too narrow. We could not do so, because we knew that this would have led to another conflict with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. And I had enough of that.
Have you mourned the comitology reform proposal (see EUROPE 11725/14)?
I don't like comitology. I believe that this is a process which, in the case of glyphosate and others, ultimately, leads to the result that, even if there is no qualified majority in the Council, the Commission must decide.
I had imagined a procedure whereby ministers could be informed of a decision, rather than bureaucrats, anonymous persons, national officials. It is not right that, on essential subjects, there should be no democratic legitimacy in the decision-making process.
Parliament was not very fond of this reform, the Council was not very fond of it at all. It is easy to cry out for respect for democratic legitimacy. But where Parliament and the Council have the tools in their hands, they prefer to make the Commission the scapegoat.
On commercial tensions, how do you stop the overbidding? Did you save anything other than time?
In international trade, not adding disorder to the existing disorder, but saving time, was not a small success.
It was written that Trump would take a decision in May and then in November. This is to be taken with the same dose of truthfulness as the initially announced May target.
In the social domain, do you support the principle of equal work, equal pay and equal contribution?
Social security is essentially national. We should not embark on an exercise that would require the harmonisation of social security contribution rates.
But I remain very attached to the proposal we made on social security systems and which, unfortunately, the Luxembourg government has accompanied with negative comments.
Why did you keep Martin Selmayr on, who was criticised for his omnipresent role?
I am a faithful man. When I decide to appoint a chief of staff or secretary general, I know why I do so.
Almost all the Heads of State or Government tell me, ‘Don't forget to tell Martin that on this or that issue, he helped us a lot.’ I do not regret this appointment, but rather the circus that accompanied it.
He has done a lot for the Commission and for Europe. He was never German. When I was talking to the Germans, he was there and not very pro-German. He did not react like French civil servants.
QUIZ ROUND