An acknowledged importance. The echo in Italy at the announcement that Mario Monti will not be part of the next European Commission confirms to what point the image of a "nursing home for politicians who failed at home" (elegant definition made by Euro-sceptic MEP Nigel Farage) is out of place and far from the real situation. For some time, the role of the Commissioner has been one of the most sought after by ambitious politicians from all over Europe and public opinion has understood this. It was first of all understood in the new Member States. Certain central and eastern European countries did not hesitate to affirm that the public in their countries would have never agreed to EU accession without the guarantee of having a Commissioner from their countries. Commissioners were then appointed from former prime ministers, ministers that were still carrying out their duties and leaders of accession negotiations. In the established Member States, following the Delors phenomenon, the importance of Commissioners became obvious with the appointment of Michel Barnier as minister of foreign affairs in France and of Pedro Solbes as minister of the economy and finance in Spain. Following which, the appointment of the new president and new Commissioners, which as we are aware, gave rise to arguments, particularly with the appointment of a serving foreign affairs minister (Louis Michel).
A case in point. The Case of Mario Monti is a case in point: he was never politically partisan and was never in a specific government. It was due to his activity as a European Commissioner that he become a person of world-wide stature, respected (and sometimes feared) everywhere and described as "Super Mario" or "the most powerful man in Europe". The decision of the Italian prime minister of not confirming his post in Brussels made the front page in the whole Italian press and created a very lively debate, with the opposition asserting that only Mr Monti's confirmation would guarantee that an Italian national had high level responsibilities in Brussels and the government defending the choice of Rocco Buttiglione (while paying homage to the qualities of the Commissioner outgoing as well).
At a European level, reactions were naturally more moderate, but with one astonishing element: France and Germany welcoming (unofficially but at a high level) Mario Monti's departure, considered as being too rigid in his assessment of state aid and too tough in the application of competition rules (and therefore hindering the development of European industrial giants to face down the competition of US and Japanese multinationals). In my opinion there is something rather dubious about these accusations, in the sense that each government protests when prohibitions apply to companies in their countries but are happy when the application of the same criteria prompts a negative decision regarding a neighbour. It is obvious that only a uniform application of the rules can ensure equal rights: one day it may charge you, on another it protects you.
A weighty legacy. I am not going to enter into a debate on the action of Mr Monti, as I have often had the chance to comment on it. I would simply like to make three remarks. I think that any judgement on the "Monti years", firstly as head of taxation and internal market, then of competition, has to take into account of three aspects where he played a pioneering role and which will have an effect on the future:
a) taxation, he took into account he observations made by Jacques Delors White Paper on disparities and social injustice caused by the increase in tax at work, made necessary by de-taxing savings (each Member State became a "fiscal paradise" for savings from other countries). Any achievement to do with savings tax originate in the action taken by Mario Monti, including that in Switzerland. Effects will be seen from next year onwards;
b) he radically overhauled the drafts governing EU competition policy. The new rules entered into force last May with regard to agreements, dominant positions and mergers and are gradually being applied to state aid. One has to refer to this section on 11, 12 and 13 May with regard to this subject. The new drafts amended certain mechanisms and created certain specific orientations. Any assessment of Mr Monti's action on "competition" has to be taken into account;
c) he opening up a new area for acting against inertia and the weight of the past: that of the liberal professions governed by professional orders, such as notaries and architects etc. whose rigidity weighs heavily sometimes on costs to companies and on the competitiveness of the economy. He won't be able to pursue his objectives now, we will have to hope that his successor does not forget them.
These three points represent Mr Monti's legacy to Europe, together with the example of intellectual rigour and independence in the face of all the different pressure. A legacy that is not insubstantial. (F.R.)