Independent of governments but also of political groups. French Communist Francis Wurtz, correctly explained the vote of his group (the United Left) against the choice of Mr Barroso as president of the European Commission. He said during the debate in Strasbourg (see our bulletin of 23 July, p.4) that his group was opposed to Mr Barroso because of his "political leanings, which are those of the European Council, the Commission and the Parliament". Mr Wurtz thus recognises that the profile of the new Commission president more or less corresponds to the guidelines that prevail in Europe at the present time. His group does not share these guidelines but implicitly recognises that Mr Barroso's "centre reformism" reflects average European public opinion.
The same respect for democracy was not obvious in the stances taken by other opponents, some of whom claimed Mr Barroso's positions were incompatible with the political reality in Europe today. Even the brilliant speech by Mr Cohn-Bendit was not, from this point of view, impeccable (as far as one could see it was not intended to be). The main thing was, however, that on nearly all sides it was stated that the Commission needs to be strong and independent and that it must have a president able to pilot it with vigour and consistency. On the subject of being independent from the governments, Mr Barroso was quite clear.
I also consider it to be a positive thing that the president of the Commission does not consider himself to be excessively linked to any one political group, for reasons of tactical opportunity and for essential reasons. Governing the Union cannot be a one-way thing. Public opinion is not, and this is also true of the national parliaments and governments. There are so many issues of determining political, economic and social importance that the EU cannot and must not choose any of the extreme positions but must show proof of imagination, seek new formulas or reasonable compromises. It is enough, for example, to cite that of services of general interest. A dialectic process that has lasted some fifteen years is now being defined on this subject of formulas which take account of the requirement that there must be a certain amount of liberalisation and market opening and, at the same time, recognise that these services form one of the pillars of the European society model. It would be ill advised of a president who, without pressure from any of the political groups, were to set out along the road of either of the two extremes. As for the tactical aspect, Jacques Delors has always stressed that a political group able to affirm that the Commission president is their man would call him to account continually. A strong and independent Commission must also be strong and independent of the EP political groups and Member States.
It is true that the eurosceptics and sovereignists confirmed during the debate in Strasbourg that they oppose a "strong and independent" Commission, consistent with their idea of an intergovernmental Europe in which the Commission "cannot be anything other than an administrative college". But their arguments seems increasingly far removed from reality. The speech in EP plenary by Nigel Farage mirrored what one reads in the so-called "popular" press of his country. How can one take someone seriously when that person rekindles counter-truths such as that whereby the Commission is a "rest home for politicians that have failed back home"?. There might have been something true in this some years ago, but today the role of European Commissioner is highly sought after, far more than a post as national minister, either through spring-boarding or to crown a career. This said, it is a very good thing that eurosceptics can express themselves so openly at the European Parliament. They can no longer say they are the victims of marginalisation. As soon as part of the European citizens elect them, they will hold a perfectly legitimate place in the Assembly.
Putting our grudges behind us. A remark on the election of the president of the Parliament. It undeniable that there was style in the Michel Rocard/Bronislaw Geremek twosome over the past five years. Mr Geremek's adversaries placed emphasis on his attitude toward the war in Iraq to have him ousted, although his attitude was similar (and sometimes more moderate) than that of several heads of government. Personally, what bothers me more is Mr Geremek's insistence on Western Europe's passiveness when his country was crushed by Hitler and Stalin. I cannot discuss history as what has happened has happened but the main objective of European integration is precisely to overcome and to make forever impossible the conflicts between countries that are part of this history - and this means putting our grudges behind us. Who would reproach Germany for Nazism today? Why, then, continue to bear a grudge against other European countries for what they did so long ago ?
I consider it normal, over and beyond the tactical and sometimes unpleasant tactics that led to Josep Borrel's election, that the new president should be Socialist, as there have not been any Socialist presidents for over ten years. (F.R.)