Support for Commission multiples but…What are the most important recent development in the institutional debate? I'll mention two of them: strengthened support for the European Commission's role and the offensive by small countries at the Convention.
For a long time, the Commission has been considered as an at risk institution in the context of institutional reforms. Guidelines involve how it works as much as its role and tended to aim at reducing its weight without knowing how it really functioned. It always had those that rose to its defence (notably in Germany from the large countries and the Benelux countries) but the quite general trend for favouring the intergovernmental method over the Community method appeared to make its decline inevitable. This trend appears to have lost some of its strength: the Commission's role has found even stronger defenders at the European Parliament and also in some national parliaments and the number of Member States that want to safeguard its prerogatives is rising.
The most spectacular element has been the about-turn by France. There is certainly no French politician today who would have dreamt in the past about reducing the Commission's competencies and it would be hardly fair to mention some of the projects and explicit assertions there were. The important thing is that France, together with Germany produced a joint paper, followed a few weeks later by a joint document with the Netherlands, both of which highlight the crucial role of the Commission in the institutional equilibrium and contain operational proposals aiming to reinforce (see the summary of the Franco-Dutch paper in our bulletin of 2 April p 3, outlining that the possibility of dissolving Parliament is effectively been proposed but without giving the Commission the facility to request it).
An indispensable reform. While considering this development as positive (as the setting up of the Commission and the powers it enjoys represent the most innovative element of the European institutional system and maintaining them is vital), I would, all the same, like to warn against any blind optimism. Strengthening the Commission's role is not possible if problems relating to how it works and its representative character are not settled in a balanced and reasonable way. Here, I include the second element, cited above: the offensive of the "small countries". Their demands (see our bulletin of 2 April p 4 and 3 April p 5) are for the most part justified and also largely correspond to the guidelines already being discussed at the Convention, except the aspect on the "Council Presidency" (where divergences with projects submitted from France, Germany, United Kingdom and Spain are very apparent). But I think that the aspects on the Commission by the small countries is incomplete. The fact of simply reclaiming "a Commissioner per Member State" and equality between all Commissioners does not take into account the serious objections that can't be got rid of simply by ignoring them. A Commission of 25 members decision-making by simple majority (it will exist as from next year) is too unbalanced. At the beginning of the year, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing had pointed out that with 25, Commissioners from 5 countries representing 78% of the population in the Union would only represent 24% of the Commission composition. The combined weight of Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy and Spain would only have 5 out of 25 votes and getting rid of a "second Commissioner" from the large countries would reduce by half the number of Commissioners from these countries. Up to what point will the large countries be prepared to allow such a Commission, making decisions by simple majority, the decision making powers of such huge importance, to exist? It seems obvious that increasing the Commission's competencies, which most governments now accept, should go together with reform of how it works.
Attempts to devise such reform have been many, one was devised by the Commission President himself. We don't speak about it any more. But it is not wise, in everyone's interest, to a priori rule out any discussion of it. I am well aware, having lived through the history of the Commission since its birth, of the exceptional contribution made by Commissioners from the small countries to the success of Europe, resulting in fact to them generally not having national interests to push forward, which made them better placed to define the common interest. But this time the change is too abrupt: nine small countries entering altogether next year, two more a year later. Too many Commissioners from new States in one fell swoop, too many people that have to gradually understand that the Commissioner haring their own nationality does not represent their interests in Brussels but the general European interest. All this needs to be discussed, the politics of burying our head in the sand needs to be rejected, if we don't, we could be in for a nasty surprise.
(F.R.)