Brussels, 02/05/2002 (Agence Europe) - The arguments put forward in the recent paper by John Temple and Eamonn Gallagher (see EUROPE of 10 April, p.9), in favour of the "one Commission per Member State" solution within the European Commission of an enlarged Union, were systematically challenged in an answer by Stanley Crossick and Giovanni Grevi, from the European Policy Centre (EPC) entitled "The Future of the Commission. One-way independence?". According to the authors of the report, before launching into "technical" discussions on the configuration of the future European Commission one should begin by recognising the "urgent need to enhance the political authority of the Commission itself". "Tinkering with the size of the Commission may have some merit but, in the absence of this major reform, it would basically amount to determining how many people should sit in a college charged with implementing somebody else's political decisions" and it is likely "not many leading politicians would like to be part of such a club", say Messrs Crossick and Grevi. After recalling that the system of a rotating Commission envisaged in Nice places all countries on the same level, they mainly answer Messrs Temple Lang and Gallagher on the following questions:
- "A Commissioner, however intelligent and independent … cannot be equally well informed about all Member States" (hence the need, say Lang and Gallagher, to have one Commissioner for each Member State). Response: a good Commissioner should keep up with developments throughout the Union, and, what is more, the members of the private offices are there to help them in this task.
- "A commission on which one quarter of the Member States have no nominee cannot possibly be 'fully representative' of a very diverse Union". Response: it is not this "full representation" that contributes to the effectiveness or independence of the College, but a strong President, with a Commission organised around the tasks it has to accomplish. Also, the problem is not whether representation is "full" but whether it is "fair", assuring that all regions and all categories of States are represented. Each new Commission must receive the approval not only of the European Parliament but also of the European Council (which should be a guarantee of fair representation), recall Crossick and Grevi.
- The presence of one Commissioner per Member State is needed so that the "specific concerns" of each State can be expressed, mainly protection of the interests of the "small" Member States (whereas the large States "can protect their interests in other ways". Response from Crossick and Grevi: the Member States "have the means to make their voice heard throughout the complex legislative process", and, moreover, "no significant divide between small and large Member States emerged in the past". In addition, it is normal that, in a growing political system, the interests of the majority prevail over those of the minority, say Crossick and Grevi, who wonder whether it would be "healthy" if all specific interests had to be integrated in a compromise at all times. Regarding the interests of the different Member States, they ask: "Is the Commission aware of the distinctive preferences of Luxembourg in fiscal matters because of the presence of Ms Reding?" They recall that small Member States are over-represented within the Council.
Stanley Crossick adds: "I put the question to my colleague, Max Kohnstamm at the EPC, who was first Secretary of the ECSC High Authority and close friend and colleague of Jean Monnet. The simplicity of his arguments is sometimes as convincing as disarming. First, with only six Member States, there was no reason to exclude anyone, and it would have been difficult to motivate. Second, there was no equality in 'representation', as large Member States had two Commissioners and Benelux countries only one. If size does not really matter, we may as well go back to this formula".