Upset balance. Let's look at, if you would, the expectation, indiscretion and more or less codified messages in connection with the future European Commission president of "25", which will be appointed in the next few weeks and which will start work in November. This will be a decisive choice for the future of Europe because for the first time, the balance of the Commission between the large countries on one side and the small countries on the other, has been upset. It is also the only point on which I do not agree with the Hungarian Commissioner designate Peter Balazs, who was excellent in his European Parliament "exam" (see our bulletin of 14 April p 8) but who avoided this aspect, asserting that an increase in the number of Commissioner from 20-25 would not represent a "considerable change". The element of risk is not really the number but the fact of the balance being upset. I'll explain.
Loss of legitimacy and prestige unless…Since the first European Community of 1952, the supranational composition of the institution respected a pretty tight balance between the large countries and the others. In the ECSC High Authority, two members were French, two German, and one each from Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg (Italy in the context of coal and steel was a "small" country). Perfect equality: four and four (a ninth member represented by the unions). This balance was subject to some fluctuation during the different enlargement but was for the most part, respected and in the current Commission, 10 Commissioner have the nationality of five countries and 10 from the small and medium sized countries. Perfect equality respected. On 1 November, representation form the large countries will be rudely reduced by half, going from 6 (with Poland), whereas small and medium sized countries will have 19 Commissioners and will have even more. Countries that represent 70% -80% of demographic and economic weight of the Union, and which provide most of its funding will only have 6 votes out of 25 (out of 27 two years later). The Commission risks losing its legitimacy and authority, unless it is changed and certain precautions are taken.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing saw the risk. It is not a personal opinion. According to Alain Lamassoure (in his "Secret History of the European Convention" p 363), Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said on 1 March 2003 at a seminar of EPP Convention members, attended by Helmut Kohl, "You are going to have a Commission with 25 members, with the application of the Treaty of Nice, next year". It will not be able to deal with the big issues. Take funding of the future Union: where will the Commission be when a large majority of Commissioner come from small countries and new Member States? The result will be the contrary of what we want to obtain: power will return entirely to the Council because the Council will have the legitimacy of being able to vote".
In reality, it is the current Commission that presented the orientations for funding the Union till 2013 and which will be presenting operational proposals soon; it's very good like this as it is well balanced and its draft was elaborated (for the most part by Michel Barnier, who is now the French minister for foreign affairs and Pedro Solbes, soon to be Spanish minister of the economy and finance. But this does not counter what Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said and I entirely agree with him: those who support the Commission because they believe that its role is essential for safeguarding the "Community method" and the interests of the small countries, which have to be involved and take action. The others, those who support the inter-governmental method and the "directory" of the big countries, are happy to let things slide, as they know that a loss of legitimacy and prestige of the Commission helps them. But outside of Belgium and Luxembourg, who really understood this?
An essential element for safeguarding the Commission's prerogatives and its role lies in the choice of the president and a broad interpretation of his powers.
A profile in sight. What should be, after the last lot of considerations, the profile of the new Commission president? Not an easy undertaking with regard to its definition and which should not go too far. But some elements in my opinion can be indicated.
The first requirement is that the new president has a profound knowledge of the Union, its rules and how it works, as well as on the possible climate and psychology of the summits. He will not have the possibility of an "apprenticeship period", which made Romano Prodi's first year in office difficult (he admitted it himself), as in a year of a 25 member Commission, with around twenty new Commissioners, he would already have gone down, as I wrote in conclusion of this section on 6 April.
The second requirement is rather a question of suitability. It would be preferable for the new president to come from a small or medium-sized country so as not to give the impression, among the new Member States in particular, that the large countries want to grab all the high prestige posts (furthermore, those who are at the orders of a large Member State have the tendency to remain at home). I believe that only a national of an old Member State could meet all the qualities required. The new members have to acquire a certain amount of experience first.
Nothing better. Jean-Claude Juncker is the person who, I believe, corresponds the best to the job profile, also given his personal qualities and characteristics that I shall summarise in a few points. He has not lost his European convictions but, at the same time, he has acquired a wisdom and a certain amount of scepticism that allow him never to give way to rhetoric or to demagogy. Among the eminent members of the group and the EPP party, he has always been the person who insists the most on the need for a social Europe. He does not hesitate to take non-conformist and sometimes harsh decisions when he considers it necessary, whether on the subject of Kosovo (see this heading of 3 April) or the Stability Pact and its revision (see this column of 14 April), not to mention more recent cases. However, I recognise that two Belgian personalities also have as many qualities, Jean-Luc Dehaene and Guy Verhofstadt, and I hear only positive things about Antonio Vitorino, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel and the former Finnish Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponen. There is also mention of Günter Verheugen (possibly, it is true, as Vice-President Supervisor of Economic and Industrial Affairs). All part of the "beau monde" as you can see.
The Juncker case. So where do the problems lie? They vary according to the case. Jean-Claude Juncker says he is not available. He is running for the next national elections, and if his voters confirm him as Prime Minister, he plans to remain so, considering that it would not be acting in earnest if he were elected and had to leave. At any rate it is obvious he would only be a contender for the Commission Presidency if he was certain of then being designated by the European Council. According to some indications, the United Kingdom considers him "too federalist", a term which no longer means the same as before but which is always received with irritation on the other side of the Channel. It is true that the British government will no longer have the right of veto in this field (the Commission President is now appointed by qualified majority), but the United Kingdom will no doubt find itself some allies, and it remains difficult to appoint a president against London's wish. One also wonders whether Mr Juncker might not remain in a "Union reserve" for appointment a few years later to the long term presidency (up to five years) of the European Council.
The Dehaene case. There are difficulties of another kind for Belgian national Jean-Luc Dehaene. The United Kingdom has already placed its veto once on his being appointed to the post of Commission president (in 1994), when all the other Member States at the time were for him, and the government in London could not let a personality through today, whatever his merits might be, that has already been refused by that country. Dehaene himself, moreover, is not keen, explaining: "I have always said that the worst films are the remakes". With his usual verve and wit he recounted his 1994 adventure (interview with Martine Dubuisson in "Le Soir" of 19 February 2004). Without going into details, which are, moreover, available in the daily mentioned for historians and the curious, I shall cite the passage relating to his presentation to the British public by the United Kingdom's "populist" papers: "They described my style, which people are accustomed to in Belgium but somewhat less in England. They presented me as a hyper-federalist. Finally, John Major was under such pressure that, if he gave me the job, he lost his own. So, for a politician, he had no choice". Mr Dehaene has nonetheless remained confident in his European destiny, saying: "This gave me a name in Europe. I knew that I could play an important role in the European circuit. This has come about (he was vice-president of the Convention which drew up the European Constitution). I am convinced that, in one way or another, I shall have other opportunities to contribute to European construction".
… and the others. The second Belgian candidate, Guy Verhofstadt, carries with him the "Laeken Declaration" and the launch of the Convention. His faith in Europe is more recent, but he has the enthusiasm of the neophyte and the great quality of being able to listen to advice (and knowing how to choose his advisors). Then come the three I know least, which of course does not mean much: Antonio Vitorino, Paavo Lipponen and Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel (who would, some say, be the favourite in London and who would also meet two criteria that have strangely enough been set: that of not being "Latin" and of coming from a country that is halfway between Western and Eastern Europe). Others may come forward. The main thing is that those taking the decision must be convinced of how important it is to choose the right person. To conclude, I shall again cite Juncker: "The next Commission has in its hands an essential part of the fabric that tomorrow's Europe will be made of". Without a good president, this fabric cannot be as good as it is needed to be". (F.R.)