Bets on balance can be won if…I am going to finish off, for the moment, on the preliminary considerations developed yesterday on the setting up of the Barroso Commission. The structure decided on by its president should not be evaluated on the basis of the nationality of Commissioners on which the different portfolios were allocated. In light of this criteria, nothing will be able to correct the basic imbalance resulting from the fact that five countries uniting 70% of the Union's population (and even more of its wealth and power) only have five Commissioners out of twenty. It is only by using the yardstick of Commissioners not representing their countries of origin but acting in the European interest, that the rule "a Commissioner of each nationality" is acceptable. With hindsight and with the knowledge of what we know about the goals and mind-set of the new Commissioners we can win the bet on getting the balance right but only if certain rules of conduct are respected and if the question that has so far remained unanswered, finds a satisfactory response.
The first rule has already been affirmed by Mr Barroso: strengthening collegiality. No Commissioner should have exclusivity in an area of his competency, no initiative should result from what are essentially person opinion; the collegial character should be clear and operational as soon as the preparatory work for each document is finished. The second rule ought to consist in avoiding going to the vote of the future financial resources of the Union. Given the imbalance in its composition, it is not through strength of numbers that the Commission will be able to propose increased charges for countries that are "net contributors"; this would be inefficient and irresponsible. In this domain, the Prodi Commission, thanks to the work of Michel Barnier and Michaele Schreyer to a large extent, did the maximum, for the new cohesion policy and the new multiannual financial perspectives. The Barroso Commission will be responsible for keeping things together and supporting, with the backing of the European Parliament and other political forces, projects on the table which are essentially the remit of Member States.
Safeguarding the essential. The question mark hanging over the Pascal Lamy and Franz Fischler couple involves the essential task of maintaining a reasonable balance between opening up trade with third countries and the safeguarding, at the same time, of the nature and territorial balance of our continent, its traditions and identity. Lamy and Fischler got this balance right by combining with both determination and courage, an audacious trade policy (sometimes almost visionary when it came to poor counties) with reform of the CAP, the maintaining of agricultural activity in Europe and the relaunch of rural zones (which represent the essential part of European territory). We'll have to wait and see whether Peter Mandelson and Else Mariann Fischer Boel, British and Danish respectively, share the same sensitivity and understanding of this vital aspect of our civilisation. The White Paper on the trade policy of the British government was published last July in the perspective of its next Council presidency (see our bulletin 17 July p 11) is not all that reassuring: in it we find banal slogans and a staggering demagogy that has not been thought through about the role of the importance of agricultural activity in Europe. Sometimes it creates the impression that certain British political leaders still base their analysis on the schema of the former empire when the United Kingdom imported raw materials and foodstuffs from Commonwealth countries in exchange for manufactured goods and that responsibility for its ecological balance was confined, above all, to forests, parks and gardens. Both admirable and imperial as a set up but things have changed. In continental Europe, it is agricultural activity that has shaped the landscape, partially safeguarded biodiversity and determined life-styles and traditions. And, in this world as it is stands, it would be irresponsible to forget the demand about ensuring Europe's food autonomy (which, in any case, is by far the main world importer of agricultural produce, especially from poor countries and it will remain so). Moreover, trade and agricultural policy outlined by London would provoke the disappearance of four fifths of all farms in the Union, with irreparable damage in both ecological and social terms. Such a policy will also be disastrous to poor countries in the world as the European market will be conquered entirely by agricultural production of rich or emerging countries. Mr Mandelson assures us that he is a convinced European, it's up to him to prove it.
A Commission concerned about the destiny of Europe cannot ignore these aspects and should not repeat certain mistakes made in the past, for which the EU has had to pay a hefty price.
(F.R.)