An institution of renown. In two weeks' time, or in July at the latest, the President of the European Commission will be appointed. Never before has this appointment excited so much interest, never have the Heads of Government paid it so much attention, never has public opinion followed it so assiduously. And never before have there been so many and so well-qualified candidates: current Heads of Government, former Heads of Government… The Commission is no longer an object of mystery; most citizens know of its existence and importance. No longer is it a refuge for politicians living out the end of their careers, or a "consolation prize" for those who have failed to secure an important political job nationally. Eminent people aspire to be part of it, many of those who are already there hope to stay there, two ex-Commissioners have been called upon to take up strategic posts in their countries of origin (Foreign Minister, Economy and Finance Minister), the Commissioners named by the new Member States are, for the most part, former Ministers, even former Prime Ministers. The institution's role is well known. The dangers lie in the changes to come in its composition and functioning (as I said in this column yesterday).
Today, I wanted to make a few observations on the Commission which will take up its duties in November, have 25 members (the same number as Member States), and will, to some extent, be a bridge between the current one (to complete its mandate in October) and those which will subsequently be set up using the provisions on the Constitution (still, in part, to be determined). Three aspects must be taken into account: the President, the Vice-Presidents and the Commissioners as a whole.
A. The President. It's not going to be easy to list all the candidates, genuine or presumed, the press is or has been talking about According to the parliamentary group EPP, the biggest group after next week's elections will be able to insist on a new President from their political family. Some Heads of Government and others have tried to draw up a profile for the new President. At a much more modest level, of course, I have done the same, and I think that a few principles remain valid (apart, obviously, from a strong belief in Europe):
the new President should have an in-depth knowledge of European affairs and how the Union functions. He or she cannot afford a year's apprenticeship, like some of their predecessors. The next Commission will be fragile, due to its composition, for the reasons I laid out in this column yesterday, and any errors or false moves will be fatal;
he or she should have plenty of experience in the habits and humours of the European Council, which he or she will need (a point Jacques Delors has continuously made) in order to be heard in the Union Summits. This does not necessarily mean that it should be a current Prime Minister;
It would be better if he or she came from a small or medium-sized country, given these countries' current anxiety that the larger ones might form a "board of directors";
he or she should know the art of compromise and be internationally renowned.
For my money, the first two conditions rules out a President from one of the new Member States, who still need to amass real experience of Union membership.
It's on the basis of these simple criteria and a few other considerations that I feel Jean-Claude Juncker is the ideal candidate, although there are other, equally valid ones: Guy Verhofstadt, Jean-Luc Dehaene, Antonio Vitorino. Some observers add Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Paavo Lipponen, Wolfgang Schüssel and Costa Simitis. Too many, perhaps, although one might have started to suspect that the multiplicity of candidates was not entirely innocent, especially as other important names have been thrown into the mix, such as Parliament President Pat Cox, the Briton Chris Patten (when he wasn't even thinking about it, but could change his mind), and even, at one point, Tony Blair himself!
Some candidates, of course, were there only to throw observers off the scent, even leading some of them to predict that the future President would be none of those referred to. And the massacre began. Read the newspapers. In London, Guy Verhofstadt's very name was "almost a provocation", because he organised a mini-Summit, without Britain, to relaunch Defence Europe, and is thought "too federalist" Chris Patten doesn't speak French and is not accepted in Paris. Wolfgang Schüssel would be rejected by Socialists because he opened the Austrian government's door to Jörg Haider. Pat Cox is apparently seen in some capitals as having "insufficient political clout" (but isn't the Presidency of the European Parliament one of the top jobs in Europe?). Jean-Claude Juncker and Jean-Luc Dehaene would turn down the job if offered it.
More recently, a change of pace. Tony Blair is said to have been persuaded to back Guy Verhofstadt's candidacy. Jean-Claude Juncker would consider accepting a "unanimous" invitation, Chris Patten could (with difficulty, but he could) allow himself to be talked round... And the current President of the Council, Bertie Ahern, who is conducting the polls, admits that he has been approached by several people asking him to stand (and some of the press fancies his chances). The application of former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres has been relaunched (a Socialist, like Vitorino). And now there's talk of a heavy-weight like Javier Solana (who has, however, officially repudiated).
MEPs are by and large tight-lipped for the moment, with the exception of EPP group President Hans-Gert Pöttering, who said that he saw it as highly unlikely that Guy Verhofstadt would get the job, given that the Liberal group will not be the biggest in the next Parliament.
What are we to think? Some think there'll be a surprise contender at the eleventh hour (but we shouldn't discount the importance of the job in question, described by one British newspaper as the most important job there is in the whole of Europe); some feel Tony Blair is the one to watch; a few disagree. And several observers feel that the appointment should be based on the qualities, European experience and overall balance of the candidate, than nationality or political inclination.
B. The Vice-Presidents. The Treaty of Nice, which still applies pending the Constitution, does not set the number of Vice-Presidents. Up until now, there have been two: one anticipating, in practice, the European Foreign Minister planned by the draft Constitution and would be in charge of the Union's external relations, the other with cross-cutting powers co-ordinating the Commission's economic and monetary work, also competition, industrial policy, the internal market and taxation. A logical pair? Not quite so straightforward...
The possibility of pre-empting the appointment of the European Foreign Minister raises several problems: the Constitution still doesn't exist; the competencies and functioning of the new duties of the future Minister (and even his or her appointment) are still to be settled; the very idea of a Commission Vice-President depending largely on the Council needs to be approached with caution, and could easily get swallowed up by the Constitution. Furthermore, anticipating such a novel element of the Constitution could be seen as disrespectful to the national parliaments (where referendums will be held) for citizens who will be called upon the state their view. But if the appointment of the Foreign Minister is not anticipated, then Javier Solana's candidacy, which has already, logically, been formulated in Madrid, loses its obviousness, because the role of the High Representative for CFSP and ESDP- which he currently occupies- continues to exist, and he will have no reason to become Commission Vice-President... alongside another High Representative! This might be the source of rumours of Javier Solana standing for the Commission Presidency: President for now, and Foreign Minister when the job exists. But this is pure speculation.
As for the other Vice-Presidency, Germany and France suggested that in order to guarantee the coherence of European policies, economic, monetary, industrial, fiscal and competitive, and all the press has already published the name of the presumed candidate: the German Günter Verheugen. This would be an initiative allowing the weight of the small and large countries within the Commission to be rebalanced (see this column yesterday). But how do you convince eminent figures to accept such vital portfolios as competition, etc, if they are to be overseen by a "horizontal" Vice-President? How far would this Vice-President's supervisory powers go? Would he or she have to approve each dossier before they were submitted to the College?
C. The Commissioners. The involvement of the new President in the choice of Commissioners will be singularly limited. The ten Commissioners from the new Member States will, in practice, be those who have taken up their duties in the current Commission; because nobody of any standing would have agreed to come to Brussels for a few months, without the guarantee of being confirmed for five years. The same, in theory, goes for the Commissioners who replaced Michel Barnier, Pedro Solbes and Anna Diamantopoulou (and soon Erkki Liikanen). It is true that the new arrivals have had the approval of the European Parliament and are proving that their choice was well-founded. But the new President's freedom of choice will be limited to some ten Commissioners out of 25. And the disaster of the large countries giving up a second Commission will involve- unforeseen circumstances notwithstanding- the departure of two of its members fêted by the press as the most outstanding figures in the current College: Pascal Lamy and Mario Monti. A nice result from an unjustifiable sacrifice. (F.R.)