A seductive formula but…The election of the President of the European Commission by the European Parliament, is a seductive formula, which presents undeniable advantages (democratic legitimacy, visibility, more life in the European political debate) but at the same time contains some disadvantages, which call for greater flexibility in a method that would increase the EP's role, without making it exclusive. This is the opinion of three speakers invited by the Constitutional Affairs Committee to speak at the study day on the EU Presidency (see this section yesterday for the information on "Presidency of the European Council"). MEPs in part, disputed the fears expressed by the guest speakers but did not exclude more flexibility in the position taken by the plenary session.
Peter Sutherland explained his perplexity at the risk of "horse trading" between the different political groups, which would definitely not lead to the best choice. The EP could even give in to the temptation of selecting one of its own members, which would not necessarily be a bad thing (several MEPs would make an excellent choice) but the concept is not beyond reproach. It is necessary for a moment to think of the "super electors" of which the Parliament is a part. Philippe de Schouteete, has expressed his worries about the danger of "politicisation in the wrong direction" and the "horse trading" with the other European institutions. Yves Mény believes that the starting point should be the reduction in the number of European Commissioners, although this is "going against the stream". The President is expected to be chosen by an "enlarged college" in which the Council and Parliament will have the same weight. The President of the Commission will have therefore dual legitimacy.
The answer. MEPs were not short of arguments. Alain Lamassouure pointed out that political groups will not choose their candidate for the Presidency of the Commission until after the European elections: the European parties will announce the choice in advance, as an important part of the election campaign and it will therefore be the people who have the definitive choice. Jean Louis Bourlangues believes that the "politicisation of the European Commission is necessary" but recognises that the election by Parliament is not the solution and fears the potential trade-offs, as much as the three speakers do. Richard Corbett considers that the guest speakers "exaggerate the downsides and ignore the advantages" of election by the EP, highlighting that this election only involves the President and that the Commission would remain "pluralist" overall by respecting the balance between the political tendencies. As for trade-offs, they already exist at the Summit. Jo Leinen defended "politicisation", as the European parties had to have political objectives and the goal of power, if not they would be inert and lacking in motivation. The solution could reside in reversing the current situation: Parliament would select the President of the Commission and the European Council would confirm it. José Maria Gil Robles came out for an election by the "two chambers": the EP, which represents the people and the Council, in its legislative functions, represents the Member States. Max van den Berg believes that the election by the EP brings the people and the institutions closer together, which is essential. One very different solution was that of sovereignist, William Abitbol: he considers that the EP has no legitimacy at all and that legitimacy only resides with Member States - their Heads of Government (who constitute the "Head of State of Europe") and which should have the right to choose in consideration of the choice of national Parliaments.
The three speakers were then called on to clarify their positions. Mr Mény considered that politicisation of the Commission was logical but at the same time by avoiding any decline in its role: it should not belong to a party but continue to represent the European interest and assume the role of guardian of the treaties. Ambassador Schontheete stated that the Commission is a political organ, which meant that a "politically partisan" position should be avoided. It should remain a coalition, which would justify it maintaining a monopoly of initiative (this would not be possible if it simply reflected a single political tendency) as well as its para-legal functions in the area of competition. Mr Sutherland was of the opinion that the only thing that counted was the effectiveness of the institutions. The Commission had to remain independent from the EP, which should not be alone in selecting the President.
The Convention could be taken over. Pervench Berès believed that the EP's position for the election of the Commission President was a "negotiating position" and thus opened the door to compromise. President Giorgio Napolitano pointed out that the worst political horse trading was that which went on at the summit where Heads of government share out responsibilities by even drawing on external EU aspects (such as the Secretary General of NATO). He concluded that he was going to think about the possibility of the Constitutional Committee officially defining its position on the two aspects of the "EU Presidency" (President of the European Council and President of the Commission) and then send it to the Commission. (F.R.)