The positive aspect… The ins and outs of the hearings of the future Commissioners by the MEPs have both a very positive side, and a somewhat disagreeable conflictual side. This latter should not blot out the former, a triumphant confirmation of the fact that the Parliament's power and position are growing, beyond its essential function as co-legislator, as an institution which is responsible for the Commission's investiture and to keep a close eye on it. What a fine example of European democracy at work, these detailed and occasionally nit-picking hearings! Never before has a fledgling European Commission been subjected to such an in-depth cross-examination. The Parliament, like the other institutions (and even the public at large, insofar as it has followed events) have fairly precise knowledge: not only of the general political orientation of each of the new Commissioners, but also their intentions towards the dossiers they will take charge of, their past, their economic interests, their personal property. A great leap forward for the Union's democratic transparency.
…and the less pleasant one. I played up the positive side, because there's the danger that it will be overshadowed by the other, that of bickerings between political groups and the personal issues which may have cast a cloud over proceedings. It is true that the bickering is all part of the game and prove that the EP is increasingly a genuine Parliament where the confrontation of ideas has a part to play. However, especially in the incident which has caused the biggest to-do, the political groups, the candidate Commissioner Rocco Buttiglione and various commentators have, in my view, contributed to blow certain differences of opinion out of all proportion, leading to a situation in which the protagonists are in danger of losing control. The Socialist group (together with MEPs from other groups) managed, in two of the parliamentary committees in question, to vote against Mr Buttiglione's being allocated the portfolio earmarked for him, but in favour of his being appointed vice-president, with other responsibilities. Then the EPP-ED group refused to allow him to be transferred to another post, leading to the final negative vote which the president of the committee, Jean-Louis Bourlanges, could not overlook. At next week's plenary session, the Socialists will have to vote against the Barroso Commission as a whole in order to maintain their opposition to Mr Buttiglione as Commissioner for Justice, as the Parliament cannot reject an individual Commissioner. By insisting on keeping Mr Buttiglione in that job, the EPP-ED has thrown down the gauntlet to the Socialists. This clash between the two largest groups puts the Commission president, Mr Barroso, in a tricky position: if he confirms Mr Buttiglione's portfolio, he risks a "no" vote from a substantial chunk of the Parliament against his Commission, and if he changes Mr Buttiglione's portfolio, he risks annoying the majority group which, in theory, supports him! Both eventualities are far more than either group would have hoped for; for this reason, they run the risk of losing control of the situation.
Accusations on both sides. Mr Buttiglione could have avoided confrontation simply by refusing to go into so much detail about his religious beliefs. Beyond the generalities (his Catholicism was no secret), he could have side-stepped direct questions on his attitude towards homosexuality by saying that he was opposed to all forms of discrimination, that the sexual orientation of citizens has no bearing on the equality of their rights and that his personal views on sin are immaterial. In the same way, what was the point of stressing that the low Latin for marriage is "matrimonium", which comes from the word "mater" (mother), and that there can be no matrimonium if there is no mother? As homosexual marriage is a national choice, and the EU can neither enforce it nor ban it, unwarranted explanations with simultaneous interpretation which must, by definition, be approximate, caused controversy which serves no purpose and is, in some measure, unjustified. One side claims that Mr Buttiglione wants to impose the doctrine and choices of the Church of Rome on Europe, the other that the EU wants to curb religious freedom because it wants to prevent Catholics from voicing their beliefs and convictions. What a mess, with accusations on both sides of Catholic fundamentalism or of secular fundamentalism, "gay lobby" or obscurantism!
Lastly, I accuse certain commentators of having reported the terms of the debate incorrectly, quoting Mr Buttiglione as saying that the family exists solely to allow the woman to have children and benefit from the protection of the man, when he was merely talking about the origin of the word "matrimonium" as a guarantee for a woman that the father of her children cannot abandon her, but must take his material responsibilities seriously (a concept which, in some form or another, has been subsumed into all national codes).
It will be hard to mend the rift with no consequences for EP-Commission relations. I will come back tomorrow on a few other points of the "hearings". (F.R.)