For and against horizontal vice-presidents. The President is essential, but it's not all. It's understandable for attention to have been riveted on the choice of the next president of the European Commission. By functioning according to the provisions of the Treaty of Nice, the next Commission is risking much, and the first condition for it to be able safely to navigate the dangerous period ahead is for its president to have prestige, authority and an in-depth knowledge of the workings and the pitfalls of the European institutional system. As I have already written: he or she will not have a "year's apprenticeship", because a year of hesitation and weakness would be more than enough to bring the whole thing down round their ears.
However, as I said, the president is not all. The composition and functioning of the enlarged College are equally fundamental. The president has a lot of say in choosing the Commissioners and in the division of the work; but let's not be naïve about it, the Heads of Government were already doing this before the president was chosen. Furthermore, the most important planned innovation, that of "horizontal" vice-presidents, was born in the capitals. I read with interest that Karel Van Miert does not believe in this, as he feels it will not work (see our bulletin of 22 June, p.6). It is true that there are considerable difficulties. Take, for instance, Chancellor Schröder's idea of a vice-president responsible for the coherence of all policies which have a bearing on productive activity: competition, industrial policy, taxation, management of the internal market. He or she would co-ordinate the work of the three or four Commissioners in charge of these sectors. Simple? Not really. How much autonomy would these Commissioners retain in their decisions and initiatives? Would the vice-president's rubber stamp be needed for a project to be put before the College? If yes, would they agree to this subordination? If no, how would coherence be guaranteed? At first sight, Karel Van Miert is right. If you look a bit closer, it raises questions. Of those taking part in the meetings of the enlarged Commission in recent weeks, several came to the conclusion that genuine discussion between 30 (the current number of Commissioners) is neither effective nor manageable, going into depth on an issue, to nail a subject; a few, fairly general, debates are possible, and to take decisions, but not to analyse and go into the crux of the problems. Debates aiming for in-depth analysis and project coherence would have to take place within different groups led by the vice-presidents, each Commissioner of course having the right to comment before College made any decisions.
Correcting the imbalance. Nobody's saying it, but the horizontal vice-presidents could also help to correct the imbalance between the Commissioners from the large countries (6 in all) and those from the small and medium countries (19 and counting). This does not mean that the vice-presidents would be the preserve of the large countries; if the right people exist, their nationality is secondary. This was true of the Presidency: Mr Juncker was universally supported, and he comes from the smallest country of the Union (with Malta). Quite simply, probability dictates that there is more chance of finding the right person in a country of tens of millions of inhabitants, than in one with just a couple of tens of thousands.
Obvious vice-presidents. Which leads us neatly to my other point: the Commissioners. In practice, a good half of the next Commission is already in place, because the ones from the ten new Member States and the replacements for the Commissioners who have left have not come to Brussels for a couple of months: with no guarantees for the future, the leading lights appointed wouldn't have been tempted. This is all to the good; but an almost entirely new Commission would hardly be reasonable. This means that as far as possible, those Commissioners who are disposed to stay and who have impressed in recent years with their action, qualities and personality must be confirmed. Some departures are inevitable, because the large countries have given up their second Commissioner (what a mistake), and Mr Fischler, Mr Bolkestein and others have announced that they will go. But other Commissioners must stay, because the Commission needs their prestige and experience. As for the vice-presidents, I would mention at least three names: Mr Monti, Mr Verheugen and Mr Vitorino. As for the last, if Mr Barroso is confirmed as president, the situation will be different For the first two, if their countries of origin want someone of their nationality in a position of some weight in Brussels, they know what to do. Possible replacements could be bursting with quality: but they would need time to prove it. However, the national aspect is not my concern: it's the Commission, and its internal and international weight, I'm thinking of.
(F.R.)