There's no time to lose. The EU needs a Commission which is up to the job of carrying out its duties fully (because there are a lot of very important and urgent things for it to do), and which enjoys the confidence of the European Parliament (because this will increase its democratic legitimacy). As for the effect on public opinion of recent events featuring Mr Barroso and the other Commissioners designate, this, in my view, will be positive and reinvigorating, because the citizens of Europe have really thrown themselves hearts and minds into the debate surrounding an Institution many of them didn't even know existed.
Positive aspects. I have nothing further to add to what I wrote before the EP vote was postponed (see this column of 27 October). I flagged up the positive aspects of these events at a time when they may not have been as immediately obvious as they do today. A lot of commentators and people on the political scene (a few of them within the Parliament itself) seemed almost fearful, or distrustful of the Strasbourg debate, like the great British newspaper which talked about the Farce of Strasbourg. There was plenty of side-slipping in the parliamentary debate too, but this is quite normal, and I would rather focus on the positive sides, which go far beyond the usual affirmations of beliefs and stances by each political group. The president of the Socialist group, Martin Schulz, stressed that the EP doesn't work to the classic formation of a majority and an opposition fighting it out, but is made up of "heterogeneous movements" which anyone hoping for a vast majority has to take into account. I think he's right, because several groups share the same essential views- support for the construction of a united Europe- and because certain fundamental economic choices cannot be based on a specific doctrine, but must be the result of compromises taking account of the differences between the views held by the Member States (and their people). I hope that this view will be shared by all of the Socialist group on the European Constitution as well, which should not reflect a particular conception of society, but leave the options open for the citizens to choose further down the line. Any opposition of the European Constitution from within the Socialist group goes against nature;
Against "reduced Commissioners". Obviously, I have no idea what changes José Manuel Barroso will make to his Commission because he re-submits it to the parliamentary vote, and I will just make one comment. I do not believe that reducing the role and duties of the Commissioners who have come in for criticism or reservations is the right way of going about things. For example, the JHA (Justice and Home Affairs) portfolio as a whole is more than the sum of its parts, and cannot be separated into them; security without liberty means dictatorship; liberty without security is institutionalised injustice, because the strongest impose their will. The Commissioner responsible for this dossier must have an overall responsibility for it, in order to be able to respect the balance needed between the various aspects of such a sensitive portfolio.
The second example is competition. The Commission in charge of this can give up a particular issue for reasons of appropriateness, but not entire sectors. His or her job is not only to look into individual cases, but to lay down general principles, in permanent contact with the anti-trust authorities in other parts of the world (especially the United States), and the prestige and authority this entails are an essential part of the job. A Commissioner with too many holes in his or her competencies would not be credible. I suspect that by indicating the number and scope of dossiers which would be entrusted to the President of the Commission or to another Commissioner to avoid conflicts of interest, the Commission's legal services wanted to make a different point, such as: you can see how many counter-indications there are, it might be better just to change Commissioner.
Obviously, I have no idea whether Rocco Buttiglione and Neelie Kroes would have made excellent Commissioners in the duties President Barroso intended to give them, but my view is that the "reduced Commissioners" formula is neither desirable nor effectual, whatever the respect due to the Commission's collegiality and the protean capacities of its president.
The honesty of Eurosceptics. It remains for me only to thank the Eurosceptic MEPs for having played their hand and reaffirmed their objectives with honesty. I am thinking of the UK Independence Party, the Lega Nord (Italy) and the Polish League of Families, and their ally Paul Marie Coûteaux, who summed it up perfectly when he said that the "Union would carry itself better if there was no Commission at all", as only national governments are legitimate. This frank opposition to all that Europe has been trying to build for half a century is refreshing, and certainly preferable to certain hypocritical attitudes. (F.R.)