Strasbourg, 27/10/2004 (Agence Europe) - European Commission president-designate José Manuel Barroso announced on Wednesday in a plenary that he would not be presenting his new Commission for the approval of the European Parliament that day. On Tuesday evening in Strasbourg, the Socialist group came out unanimously against the team as it currently stands, which was also the overwhelming position of the ALDE group. These two groups and the Greens/EFA had prepared a common resolution for possible adoption on Wednesday (see below) but as president Josep Borrell pointed out during the plenary: "today", there is no request for postponing the vote on the Commission but the president-designate at the Commission had informed MEPs that there would not be a proposal on the future European Commission on which to vote. At the same time, Josep Borrell asked José Manuel Barroso to read the proposals from the MEPs' resolution because in it he would be able to find elements that would help him in his search for a solution. He said that he also included the text of the EPP-ED group (see below) in this connection. Borrell requested Barroso to come up with a new proposal as soon as possible and keep parliament informed but not necessarily with deadlines (November plenary, as requested by the copresident of the UEN group, Cristiana Muscardini).
Addressing MEPs, the president of the Council Atzo Nicolaï immediately affirmed on Wednesday that in these conditions, the Prodi Commission would remain at work as long as necessary. A press release explained that the president of the European Council Jan-Peter Balkenende had made contact with Romano Prodi to ask him officially to remain in place until the new Commission was set up following the inauguration by the European Parliament. According to the press release, president Prodi said that he was available to guarantee the continuity of the institutions (EUROPE 26 October p 4). Atzo Nicolaï said during the plenary that what had just happened was a sign of the maturity of European democracy. The Council and the presidency, although not officially part of this debate are also responsible and that "we assume this responsibility by resuming consultation with the president-designate and Member States", he declared, adding that the president and Council were "renewing their trust in Mr Barroso and expressing their understanding at his decision". Cristiana Muscardini (who thinks that the Council should meet on Friday and take advantage of the signing of the European constitution in Rome) considered that the "Prodi Commission should remain at work but just for managing current affairs".
An official at the Commission's legal service said that the Prodi Commission was there for dispatching day-to-day matters. A Coreper meeting on Wednesday examined this new situation.
Barroso: Parliament plays vital role in governance of Europe
In his brief intervention at the beginning of the week (welcomed by sustained applause on several occasions), José Manuel Barroso declared that the had been listening attentively to yesterday's debate (EUROPE yesterday pp 4-7). "I had several substantial meeting with heads of political groups and I spoke to the president of the European Council. I concluded that if there had been a vote today, the result would not have been positive for the European institutions or the European project. In these circumstances, I decided to not present a new Commission for your approval today. I need more time to examine the question and consult the European Council in order to obtain strong support for the new Commission. It is better to take time to do this, which is necessary. The last few days have demonstrated that the European Union is a strong political construction and tat the Parliament, elected by popular suffrage in our Member States plays a vital role in the governance of Europe…I believe, Monsieur the president, that we will reach an agreement on our common commitment to strengthen the democratic nature of the European Union and I hope that we will get their in the next few weeks, which will allow us to move forward in the work and spirit of the European Union. I am always ready to provide you with loyal cooperation for the wellbeing of Europe".
Despite their differences, most groups welcome progress in democracy
Hans-Gert Pöttering president of the EPP-ED immediately assured Mr Barroso that his group had supported him from the outset and that they would continue to do because they wanted a strong Commission. Pöttering recognised that they would have willingly voted today but that politics was a process and that they should welcome the "parlementarisation" of the Union. The CDU MEP said that it was an important day in the history of the parliament and insisted that no one member should be singled our from the future Commission had that lessons should be drawn from all the hearings.
The president of the Socialist group Martin Schulz admitted that the decision of his group to unanimously reject the Commission as it stood had been difficult. The SPD MEP said that Mr Barroso had recognised that his proposal had not gained a majority and that he had drawn the right conclusions. He asked the president-designate to not come back with the same Commission and that he should take into account parliaments proposal. Schulz told Mr Barroso once again that on 22 July he had 413 votes for (including those of certain Socialists) which was clearly indicative of overall trust but that at the European Parliament, support from social democrats was also needed.
The president of the ALDE group Graham Watson said that today the European Parliament had grown in stature, its will had been tested and had prevailed. He underlined the fact that parliament had simply demanded to be treated with respect. The British Liberal Democrat said that Euro-scepticism had lost out today because the voice of democracy had been heard in all capitals. He added that yesterday "you thought it anti-European to vote against your Commission. Honestly, it's unbelievable" because it is exactly the opposite (see p 5 on Barroso's explanations). Watson called on the Council to reflect on its own responsibilities for this impasse and support Barroso in his attempts to get out of the dead-end. Watson said that he hoped that during the sumptuous dinner at next week's Summit, there would be some food for thought.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit, copresdient of the Greens/EFA, encouraged Mr Barroso (and also Mr Pöttering) to "read some Mao tse-Tung, which said that understanding defeat meant preparing for victory". He added that they would help him in his "long march". Cohn-Bendit indicated to Barroso that if he refused the proposal from a Member State on an incompetent candidate, he would get their support. He insisted that this had nothing to do with ideology and welcomed the "brave initiative of Mr Barroso, while pointing out (in connection with the EPP/ED) that the strongest political groups was not necessarily the majority in parliament.
Francis Wurtz, president of the United Left/Nordic Green Left said that "we have succeeded, we've won". He called for the next steps to be prepared and draw the lessons from this unprecedented situation. He said that a critical evaluation was needed of what had happened to give a sense to the European adventure. He told Mr Barroso that "I believe in Europe, don't put me in the camp of the anti-Europeans any more!". While criticising the too liberal vision of the future Commission, Wurtz considered that working towards a real debate on civilisation was needed that could bring results.
The co-president of the Independence and Democracy group, Jens-Peter Bonde reaffirmed his total rejection of the method of designating the Commission. He said that Heads of governments proposed who they liked and those they wanted to go and repeated his proposal that nation parliaments should propose Commissioners.
Christina Muscardini, co-president of the Union for a Europe of Nations (which supported the Barroso Commission) admitted that she would have preferred to vote straight away. Renewing her support for Barros, the Aleanza nazionale MEP requested that new hearings would be needed over the next few weeks (but only for any new candidates or for changes of portfolios: Editor's note) and the same modalities should be applied for all the parliamentary committees which did not happen for the previous hearings, she regretted. She insisted (without citing Rocco Buttiglione) the defence of those who remained strong in their conviction faced with the "intellectual manoeuvring" of those who did not respect others. She concluded that Mr Barroso had to listen to parliament but should reject any blackmail as the Commission did not need to be taught any lessons.
Marek Aleksander Czarnecki (Polish non-attached said that the decisions of the European Commission involved governments and the margin for Barroso's room for manoeuvre remained very narrow. He welcomed the "character which the president-designate had tackled this affair.
Thanking those who understood what lay behind his actions, Mr Barroso said: "I am a man of compromise, this is in my nature, and I am all for a coalition between all those who are for Europe". He also referred to a culture of respect between the institutions: "we cannot establish one institution's authority to the detriment of the other (…), and the Council is made up of democrats to, they have all been elected in their own countries", he pointed out.
The debate was disturbed a few times by the attempts of Robert Kilroy-Silk (Ind/Dem, UK) to introduce a point of order that wasn't: in a situation like this, any self-respecting politician would have resigned, he said. Alessandra Mussolini (independent, Italy) complained that only presidents of political groups had been allowed to speak during this debate.
Draft resolutions which were not voted on
In their joint proposed resolution, which was not voted on, the PES, ALDE, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL stress "the democratic and legal validity of the approval process [for the European Commission] of which the hearings are a crucial part, and insists that all the institutions draw the political consequences of it, which might include resignation, reshuffle or withdrawal".
However, the EPP-ED proposed resolution stresses the future more than the present, stressing the need for the inter-institutional agreement of 29 June 2000 between the Parliament and the Commission to be revised as soon as possible. This detailed resolution asks in particular that "if the European Parliament withdraws its confidence in a member of the Commission, and if the President of the Commission does not plan to call for that person to resign", a "Parliament information procedure be put into place to justify this decision".
Mr Barroso will make the "necessary and sufficient" changes
At the press conference in Strasbourg, Mr Barroso reiterated that he had decided to "stop the clock in the best interests of Europe and the citizens of Europe". Fielding questions on the reshuffling he would have to do within his team, he declined at this stage to "make comments on specific names", pointing out that he had to "consult the European Council and the various political forces of the EP". He said that he would seek "a solution which has majority support within the European Parliament". "I intend to change what is necessary and sufficient", he said. "You have just made a political error, are you going to hand your mandate back to the European Council?", asked a journalist. Mr Barroso retorted that "this view is not shared by the vast majority of the Parliament". The MEPs supported my decision as a "correct and proper thing to do with the exception, I believe, of one MEP from a small party who criticised me", he said, in reference to Robert Kilroy Silk of the UK Independence Party. "I have been supported in this approach by all the major pro-European political forces who welcomed the constructive, graceful, institutionally correct, rational and moderate stance I took", said Mr Barroso. When asked why there had been such a sea change in the situation between Wednesday and Thursday, Mr Barroso answered that the debate in the plenary on Wednesday morning had made it clear to him that there were "delicate issues". His subsequent contact with the various presidents of the EP groups "got me thinking". Why did he not react earlier to the criticism by making a few changes? "At this stage, I could not replace anyone. It is not just the European Council which is blocking it. There are also the various political forces within the EP", he explained. "The truth is that various political forces in the EP asked me to make changes, and others told me exactly the opposite", said Mr Barroso.
On his statements on Wednesday, which he feels may have been misinterpreted to some extent (see p.4), Mr Barroso said that what he meant was that it would be "'politically strange" for pro-European political forces to be on the same side "in such an important vote" as the anti-Europeans. "And the decision I have just taken aims to prevent just such a situation from coming about", he explained, adding that "this polarisation would have been a bad thing for Europe". "Would it have been right for the institutions to have a relatively weak Commission if the vote had been positive, or for the Commission to be rejected if it had been negative?", asked Mr Barroso, who feels that "this would not have been good for the Commission, nor for the other institutions". He repeated that he was not the President of a partisan Commission: "I am seeking a compromise with the most representative political forces", he stressed.
Mr Borrell leaves the European Council to do its job
President Borrell also stressed the political nature of the process started by the Parliament: we must "not take this debate as a crisis or clash between the institutions, but as a normal debate within a European Parliament which is becoming stronger, with Europe, on the path of democracy". The Parliament is doing its job, because it would not have been right to "say yes just because 'no' would trigger a crisis", he said. Explaining that he expected a new proposal "as soon as possible, but without hurrying", Mr Borrell also underlined the role incumbent upon the European Council in the current deadlock: the President designate "is working with what he is given and chooses portfolios for people he did not chose". Parliament's role is stronger, because "Council no longer has the monopoly on setting up the Commission", said Mr Borrell. He feels that Mr Barroso's actions should afford Europe "a strong European Commission and a credible European Parliament, representing a political force which is capable of influencing the course of events". If the vote had taken place today, whatever the result had been, "the Commission would have been marked by arguments and weakness", concluded Mr Borrell.
A solution for Rocco Buttiglione?
The Italian press stated that Silvio Berlusconi, further to a telephone conversation with José Manuel Barroso on Tuesday afternoon, telephoned Rocco Buttiglione to ask him to help towards a solution that would avoid embarrassment for Italy, but without success. However, the Italian press is already referring to possible candidates: Foreign Minister Franco Frattini (whom Rocco Buttiglione would then replace), former Economy Minister Giulio Tremonti, the president of the Region of Lombardy, Roberto Formigoni (former MEP) and the current Competition Commissioner, Mario Monti.