Official explanation. Before I give you a few comments on recent movements within the services of the European Commission (see this column in the previous bulletin), I have carried out my own little investigation. Here, first of all, is the official explanation. The decisions were taken with a view to implementing the three service guidelines laid down by the Commission as soon as it entered into force, which are: a Director General should not share a nationality with the Commissioner working above him or her; a Director General should not occupy the same post for more than five years; the balance between men and women should be improved. Furthermore, it is vital to make a fair and reasonable amount of room, at the higher echelons of administrative posts, for reasonable number of nationals from the new Member States. This is all well and good. But is it understandable for these three guidelines to result in the administration's political orientation?
The role of the president. My little investigation first of all enabled me to ascertain that the president of the Commission personally guided and determined most of the decisions taken. The clearest example of this was that of the new Secretary General; on the eve of her appointment, the vice-presidents of the Commission (or, at least, some of them) were unaware of the appointment of Catherine Day! The Financial Times, which is following the whole affair with a particular, not to say excessive, interest, had stated the day before that David O'Sullivan was staying put. In fact, his replacement had been under discussion for a long time, because the limit of five years was up, and several names were making the rounds of the corridors, particularly those of Directors General whose skills, personal prestige and experience were acknowledged universally: Eneko Landaburu, François Lamoureux. Nobody was criticising the choice of Catherine Day, whose qualities are beyond doubt. The fact that this appointment was made by the President (and subsequently approved by the whole of the Commission) has been the subject of contradictory assessments: some people feel that collegiality was only respected on paper; and others that the reinforcement of the role of the President represents a desirable step forward.
The three "shortcomings" of Mr Lamoureux. The second element highlighted by the press is the not inconsiderable sidelining of François Lamoureux. The Financial Times announced this plan as much as three months ago. In a recent survey, this newspaper came out on top of information sources on Community civil servants (with second place going to Agence Europe, thanks to our readers). I have to admit I struggled slightly to consider the Financial Times as a well-balanced information source in the field of European affairs, but it is no doubt useful and well informed, as long as you know that it is reflecting the position of a certain British establishment, the city of London in particular. That's all you need to know. In the same way as, when you read the stance taken by the European federalists, you already know which way they lean and what positions they defend, when you read the pink pages of this particular British daily, you ought to be aware of the interests it is reflecting. In the view of this organ, Mr Lamoureux had three shortcomings: his "Delors-esque” political orientation, his passion for regulating and the role he played in drawing up the "Penelope draft", the alternative to the Constitution of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. It would be easy to object that: a) those seeking to break the constitutional deadlock are becoming increasingly interested in Penelope; b) the importance of legislation cannot be underestimated (president Barroso knows that if he launches the idea of a new common policy, as he did last week on the maritime policy, new legislation will be necessary (and this is the case for the vast majority of drafts which were written under the aegis of Mr Lamoureux)); c) The Delors era will go down in the history of Europe as a golden period, played out against circumstances which were often just as difficult as those today. But this is not where the problem lies; the fact is that the Financial Times had known for months that certain political forces were acting to move Mr Lamoureux to the sidelines, and they have succeeded in so doing. Did the reasons mentioned above make it inevitable that he would have to leave the Directorate General Energy/Transport? Very well; but other possibilities existed; indeed, they were very often mentioned. But they were not taken into account.
It is a shame to have to do put these reflections down on paper just as the Commission seems increasingly aware of certain requirements of the EU. Here are two examples. President Barroso has just declared that "better and more flexible" rules do not mean less EU presence: "in certain areas, it should be doing more, not less". And Mr Mandelson has declared that the EU's additional concessions on the agricultural plank at the WTO "would not coincide with the interests of the vast majority of the developing countries". Would they have said the same things a few months ago? (F.R.)