Political objectives? It is not Agence Europe's usual practice to comment on appointments, secondments and other movements within the services of the European institutions. It publishes information, sometimes with a few comments about the people involved, but never any more than this. But this time, an exception appears justified. The recent decisions of the European Commission with regard to its Secretary General and various of the Directors General and deputy Directors General have given rise to an avalanche of comments and interpretations which far outstrip the administrative dimension of the operation, which has been credited with a political side too tough. Political, in the sense that the decisions have been presented as a new vision of the European Union and of the role and visions of the Commission itself being applied to its services. And, the commentators state, it is quite clear where this is going: towards the "liberal option", for a less regulated Europe which is resolutely committed to globalisation. Some newspapers, choosing to be fairly bold in their stances, spoke of a "victory for the Thatcherites" or "Barroso's liberal soup".
A symbol and a few examples. As a symbol of this reversal of opinion, the commentators frequently brought up the case of François Lamoureux, Director General for Energy and Transport, who was not given any other Directorate General, and who will become a "adviser hors classe" to the President on 1 January next year, and it will be up to the President to decide, when the time comes, what his specific tasks will be. Mr Lamoureux was referred to mainly as former deputy chef de cabinet to Jacques Delors, the last of the "Delorians" to occupy a high-responsibility post within the Commission. As long ago as last July, the "Financial Times" announced that side- lining him was the objective of the British and anyone who wanted to change the EU's direction. Now, the newspaper stresses that Mr Lamoureux was one of the main "producers of European legislation", figures to hand. The appointment of Catherine Day to the top job, that of Secretary General, was interpreted in the same way; she was in Sir Leon Brittan's Cabinet when Mr Lamoureux was in that of Jacques Delors and, in the view of one commentator, this represents the "revenge" taken by the former vice president on the former president (in his day, Sir Leon had been a proponent of a free trade area or some kind of common economic space between Europe and the United States, and economic liberalism was his religion). Added to this are considerations relating to the appointment of David O'Sullivan, former Secretary General, to the head of the Directorate General "Trade", whose former head, Peter Carl, went to DG Environment. This change has been put down to the wishes of Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson to have a warmer champion of trade liberalism as his right-hand man. The movements relating to Ms Day, Mr O'Sullivan and Mr Carl enter into force immediately, on Monday 21 November, at a crucial point of the next round of negotiations at the WTO.
Justified interpretations? The overriding interpretation, therefore, is clear: the services of the Commission are believed to have been turned upside down to bring them more into line with a favourable disposition towards economic and commercial liberalism and lighter, less dense European rules. That this corresponds to the political orientations of President Barroso is without a doubt true, because he had said this clearly on several occasions. The objective of trimming down European legislation appears clearly in the slogan "better regulation" (which, for the time being, is equivalent to "less regulation") and on the initiative to get rid of a considerable number of texts; and it is no secret that the majority of economic reforms recommended go towards freer and more open competition and less public intervention in the economy. It is not my intention, here, to re-open a debate which is at the heart of the reflection on the future of Europe. Moreover, no one is challenging the fact that here and there, Community legislation contains excesses of red tape (particularly when the sector has been the subject of a large number of consecutive provisions, which imperatively require codification) and that the Lisbon strategy goes towards finishing off and perfecting the opening up of the markets wherever national barriers subsist. But at the same time, it is clear that the recommended completion of the greater single market in itself implies additional rules, and that new initiatives, such as "Galileo", have called for, and are still calling for, ad hoc regulations. But the questions raised by the case of the high-level civil servants are much more modest: does the reshuffle, and do its new appointments, pursue political objectives? Are they the concretisation of orientations which the Commission wishes to pursue? And are the interpretations of the press justified?
I will put forward a few comments on this subject in the next edition of this column. ( F.R.)