The Commission must reflect the diverse choices of the electorate. The first Commission of the enlarged Europe is to take up its duties in the next few days, once it has been invested by the European Parliament. The events surrounding its configuration (and which include positive elements, which I tried to outline in this column on 27 October) are over, and at the final analysis, Parliamentary support was reasonably broad, despite the clear reservations of various political groups. This was the case for the "Sovereignists", who feel that a supranational Commission independent of national governments should not even exist, the Greens (who are opposed to a small number of individual Commissioners) and a section of the Left, which feels that the new Commission is "marked by an untrammelled liberalism". These reservations represent political choices which are clearly legitimate, but which does not, in my view, mean that they are all justified. To the Sovereignists, I would always uphold the "Community method", which is based on pooling certain powers and competencies, because centuries of history demonstrate that intergovernmental cooperation has never prevented conflict, and that alliances last as long as the kings or leaders who decide upon them. Only the "Community method" makes the union of Europe sustainable by nature, and allows it to be based on consensus rather than force.
As the political leanings of the electorate was not the same in all European countries, we cannot assemble a European Commission as one would a government, with a governing majority and a system of alternation. The President is appointed on the basis of the results of the European elections, and the Commission as a whole must reflect the differences. The composition of the Barroso Commission respects this criterion. The Commission is a college, all political points of view are represented within it, and all orientations have a voice. Those waiting for its President to make a mistake are a bit too quick off the mark, especially as they all seem to be expecting different mistakes. Some feel that Mr Barroso would be a rabid "atlantist" in foreign policy, alongside Messrs Blair, Berlusconi and Aznar and the central and eastern European countries. How could these people possibly imagine that the President would be stupid enough to alienate France, Germany, Benelux, Mr Zapatero's Spain, and many more, in one fell swoop? Others see him more as some kind of "white knight", protecting the little countries from the overbearing large ones. But this is a Commission with six Commissioners from large countries and nineteen from small and medium-sized ones, so this is not the forum for them to be overbearing! Let's at least wait and see the Barroso Commission at work before we judge.
A few urgent appointments. The new Commission doesn't have the leisure for a breaking-in period, because it will have a few urgent choices to make very quickly. The proposals it is to present to the Summit for the end of January on the revision and relaunch of the Lisbon Strategy will offer an early indication of its orientations, mainly on the balance between the three dimensions- economic, social and environmental- of this strategy. It will have to make some tricky choices between the demands of competitiveness (under constant and growing pressure from economic and industrial circles, which tend to identify Lisbon with competitiveness) and safeguarding the European model of society, including ecological aspects. It will have to clarify its options in the vast domain which goes by the name of industrial policy and which in fact includes competition policy, social policy, environmental rules and the functioning of the single market. As vice-president, Mr Verheugen, who is directly responsible for industrial policy, will have to ensure that it is coherent with all these other policies. The Commission will also have to return to the multilateral trade negotiating tables very soon at the WTO, and resume a number of bilateral negotiations, with Mercosur to name but one.
I spoke of other pressing matters in this column on 21 October, 22 October and 5 November. The dossier I feel raises the most concern and the most question marks is that on trade negotiations. Despite his talents as an orator and his rejection of the "simplistic liberal" label (see this column of 12 October), Peter Mandelson very much gives the impression that he is prepared, in the best traditions of his country of origin, to sacrifice European agriculture on the altar of liberalised world trade. And I have heard Mariann Fischer Boel say nothing which betrays her vision of agriculture as an essential component of the history and culture of Europe, and that she sees rural areas as the heart of our traditions and our very landscape. That's pretty serious. But we'll wait and see. (F.R.)