Imbalance. Pending a reasonable and effective solution for the composition of the European Commission once the entry into effect of the Constitution has been defined (see this column yesterday), one must hope that the "Nice formula" Commission that is to take on its mandate in November will be able to safeguard the prestige and authority of the institution. The danger lies in its uneven make-up. Hitherto, the composition of the Commission has always maintained a balance between large and small Member States. In the ECSC High Authority, the Commission's ancestor, four members were from the two large countries (France and Germany) and four from the small or medium-sized countries (the three Benelux countries and Italy, which was considered small for the purposes of coal and steel). Today, the Commission has 20 Commissioners, 10 of which are from the five large Member States (Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy and Spain) and 10 from the medium and small countries. In the next Commission, the number of Commissioners from the "large" countries will be reduced to 6 (including Poland), and the number of Commissioners from small or medium sized countries will have almost doubled, up to 19! Six Commissioners will represent (I am fully aware this verb is inexact but I use it to simplify) around three quarters of the population, the wealth and the financing of the Union, while the remaining quarter will have nineteen Commissioners.
Remedies. The least we can say is that the Commission will be out of balance. According to the Convention's Chairman, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, it will not be able to vote, as it will not have sufficient representativeness and legitimacy. Given such disproportion, the governments of the "large" states only had two possibilities: either reduce the powers of the Commission or change the way it works. Fortunately, there was little support for the first formula. The Commission is criticised as much as possible and even beyond what is reasonable and beyond its real faults or failings, but, at the end of the day, most Member States understand it is necessary for Union management, for launching new initiatives, for trade negotiation and for maintaining the way this complex machine that the Union has become works. Any reduction of the powers of the Commission would not cause scenes of despair in either London or in some other capitals. Berlin and even Paris, however, although critical of the Commission and putting it under considerable pressure, vigorously reaffirm its central role and oppose any reduction in its powers. In some Member States, with Belgium to the fore, awareness of the Commission's role is particularly strong. It is the most innovative element of the Union's institutional structure. Its autonomy compared to the governments is a stroke of genius which has allowed it to go beyond governmental haggling, and other continents take inspiration from the Commission.
As the nibbling away at Commission powers has in principle been stopped, review of the way it works must still be stepped up, although already begun and confirmed by the Convention. This is not essentially a legal matter, however. On the contrary, it is the political aspect that dominates, linked to the choice of its president and to the specific, horizontal tasks to be entrusted to its vice-presidents.
"Horizontal" vice-presidents. This idea is not new. One remembers the "Toulemon formula", introducing a Commission praesidium whose consensus would be needed for decision-making, or Romano Prodi's attempt to define internal reform based on the recognised powers of the president. What is new is the direct and almost impassioned involvement of heads of government. For the first time, the choice of president is seen as a key element of European policy, involving all the political forces and also being of interest to public opinion. And the number of leading candidates of worth (either real or presumed) is vast and diversified. At the same time, the idea of a "horizontal" vice-president, who would be at the head of and coordinate the work of the Commissioners responsible for economic and financial affairs, competition and the internal martket was launched by Chancellor Schröder and backed by President Chirac as well as being more or less openly backed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. This vice-president would be added to the vice-president already foreseen by the draft Constitution with the title of European Foreign Minister. It is also a question of other horizontal vice-presidents for other sectors. This guideline obviously entails some dangers, as the "foreign affairs" vice-president will largely come under the Council, and what is justified in this specific sector may not be so in others. It would mean a fatal slide in Commission autonomy. Assessment of such initiatives are therefore difficult to make and at any rate premature. What I would like to stress, however, is, for now, the great deal of effort being made to revise the way the Commission works.
Tomorrow, I shall endeavour to take stock of the way candidates are seeking involvement in the various posts. (F.R.)