Brussels, 29/01/2009 (Agence Europe) - During an interview given by the president of the European Commission to Agence EUROPE this week (see first part published in yesterday's bulletin), José Manuel Barroso discussed how his institution functioned at an operational level. A lot of criticism has been directed at him for the Commission having displayed less independence from member state governments and backsliding in its role of driving force for European integration. Mr Barroso says that this is false and explains that the Commission has been at the origin of all the major initiatives and has simply adapted to the new political and institutional context of the EU, expanded to 27 members, which requires, he believes, a new form of “constructive partnership” between the institutions. The president of the Commission says that this is the only way of pushing Europe forward. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Barroso would like both the Commission and European Council to have two “strong” presidents but which can “work in tandem”. (H.B./transl.rh)
EUROPE: Some accuse your Commission of having whittled down its independence and abandoned its role of driving force for European integration. Martin Schulz, the president of the Socialist Group at the EP, believes that the Commission has become the “Secretariat General of the Council”.
José Manuel Barroso: This is not at all true. All the major initiatives recently taken in Europe were launched by the Commission. Who launched the common energy policy? It was me, three years ago, after the informal European Council at Hampton Court. We seized the moment. One has to recall five or six years ago that when we talked about a common energy policy, the member states immediately said no. Today, everyone understands that something should be done and we are making progress on this issue. And the fight against climate change? Who proposed doing something? Who proposed the Energy/Climate Package? It was us, the Commission! Not only did we take the political initiative but the technical one as well. The Commission is both the father and mother of the Energy/Climate Package. Afterwards, we obviously worked with the member states to get it adopted under the French Presidency. But let's be clear and honest: the author of the package is not France, Germany or the United Kingdom, but the Commission. Another example: the European economic recovery plan. Once again, this was our initiative.
EUROPE: You don't think, therefore, that the Commission has changed its role under your mandate?
José Manuel Barroso: Some people have still not understood that Europe, today, is working in a context that is completely different from what it was when the Union consisted of six, nine or twelve members…Today, decision-making is nothing like what it was in the past. Subsequently, although the principles of our founding fathers are still the same, and I remain very attached to these principles, the problems have become much more complex. If we do not have a partnership between the three major political institutions - the Commission, Council and European Parliament - we will not obtain results. Certain people think that the Commission should be at war with the member states all the time. By acting in this way, I could perhaps increase my popularity ratings but it would not achieve any results. Moreover, what I think is important, personally, are the results. Let's take the example of the Energy/Climate Package: without France's support and that of President Sarkozy, we wouldn't have it because agreement from the Council is required for taking decisions.
I am carrying out a policy of active partnership, sometimes this partnership with member states is a critical one. I support a constructive partnership between the institutions because if it were otherwise, our citizens would not understand. They believe that what the different institutions do is very vague. It is Europe that counts and Europe must appear united. I think that my concept of a constructive partnership between the institutions is the only one that will help Europe move forward.
EUROPE: Mr Sarkozy recently suggested that in the future, he would like a Commission reduced to a technical role of guardian of the treaties and for member states to provide the political impetus.
José Manuel Barroso: Mr Sarkozy clearly told me that he saw the Commission's role as being both technical and political. I agree with that. The Commission also has what I call, “technical charisma”. This technical expertise is an advantage and enhances its credibility. But let's be clear: I am for the Commission playing an eminently political role. The Commission represents the European interest and I would not accept a reduced role for the Commission in any way. I've already clearly told this to the member states - even at this difficult time of economic crisis and when member states sometimes have a tendency to take national and unilateral measures. Some of them would like the Commission to be a bit more flexible with regard to respect for the rules and Community acquis. Despite all this pressure, I have kept my Commission well on line for respecting the internal market and rules for competition and state aid. This is how the role of the Commission is defended.
EUROPE: Can a Commission with 27 or more members still be efficient? Some small countries are the first to acknowledge a need for a strong Commission but have expressed fears about this issue.
José Manuel Barroso: No country has told me that it would prefer a reduced Commission. Even the prime minister of Belgium recently told me that he saw no problem in maintaining the rule of one commissioner per country. Personally, I could live with a reduced Commission but it is in fact the small and medium member states that asked for each country to have its own commissioner. Ireland also explicitly called for it (Ed: as part of the attempt to find a solution for ratifying the Lisbon Treaty). The small and medium countries will find it difficult for a time not to have one of their own nationals at an institution as important as the Commission. Frankly, I don't believe the number of commissioners is the real question. What counts, is the culture of the Commission and how it is managed. The Commission can function efficiently, even with this large number of commissioners. Independent studies confirm this.
EUROPE: Does the Commission have the legitimacy needed for voting on whether each commissioner has one vote, irrespective of the size of the country that appointed them?
José Manuel Barroso: For me, the Commission does not represent the member states but rather, the European interest. The commissioners' vote depends on their position on each dossier. Until now, we have not needed to proceed to a vote because I am trying to lead this Commission by consensus. One of this Commission's great successes is to have demonstrated that with 27 individuals from different countries and political families, it is possible to achieve consensus in the general European interest, which prevails over the commissioners' national or specific interest …I am concerned with creating consensus in the old tradition of European compromise. This is also the Community method. We have not seen groups (of commissioners) forming in this Commission and I believe this is one of the great successes of the European spirit.
EUROPE: Is a strong Commission president actually needed then?
José Manuel Barroso: I am in favour of the president having an active and strong role…It is necessary for the president's authority to be strong. He has to guarantee the collegiate nature of decisions taken by the Commission.
EUROPE: And the European Council having a future permanent presidency?
José Manuel Barroso: This president too, must play a strong role. We need this…The Commission can be stronger when we get a permanent president of the European Council…but the two of them must work in tandem. I hope that those who occupy these posts will have the political intelligence and European spirit to do this because if there is not a good working relationship between the two of them, we will have a real problem.
EUROPE: The Lisbon Treaty is not very explicit about the remit of the permanent president of the European Council, the high representative or the president of the Commission. Aren't you afraid that ultimately, it will be the Commission that pays the price for this lack of clarity?
José Manuel Barroso: Some believe that what one institution gains (Ed: in power and authority), another loses. I believe, on the contrary, that the institutions can mutually strengthen themselves. This is the only possible way. I find it a little weak, intellectually, to believe that if the European Council is strengthened in the future, the Commission will lose out or to say that if the Commission becomes stronger, the losers are European Council and Parliament. I am against this way of thinking. What we need is a strong Europe. This is what I find important and what counts for citizens.
EUROPE: The European Parliament is asking for the appointment of the Commission president, due to begin immediately after the European elections, to be subject to the rules of the Lisbon Treaty even if the new treaty is not yet in force. What do you think about this?
José Manuel Barroso: This is a question that we will have to discuss with Parliament and the Council. It involves a very sensitive political and institutional issue. I don't want to discuss this any further but the treaties must be respected. The Commission is the guardian of the treaties. The current treaty is the Treaty of Nice. We must respect this treaty as long as it is in force. I want the Lisbon Treaty very much and it must be respected once it is in force. Politically, I am not against the idea you raised but in legal terms it is clear that we will defend the treaty in force. While being open to the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, I must, all the same, say that only one treaty can be applied at a given time.
EUROPE: You are at this stage, the only candidate in the running for the post of president of the next Commission. Although you say you support the political spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, which links the appointment of this post to the results of the European elections, do you intend to present your candidacy to European voters with a balance sheet for the current mandate and a programme for the next five years?
José Manuel Barroso: I am not saying I am a candidate. I said that if it were to be decided now, I would be a candidate. But the elections are not taking place now. It won't be until June and then it will be necessary to analyse the circumstances. You know that a week in politics is an eternity. I am a very committed European. It is a great privilege to occupy this post and I am very motivated. If I had to make the decision now and if I had, as I do now, the overall support of the most significant political forces at Parliament and the European Council, naturally, I would stay for a second mandate but this is a decision I will make at the right moment.
EUROPE: There is, therefore, no question of campaigning before the European elections as your political family, the European People's Party (EPP) has sometimes suggested?
José Manuel Barroso: No, there is no question of it. I'll repeat it to you: the Lisbon Treaty is not in force. Personally, I am for an election. If tomorrow, there were an election by universal suffrage of the president of Commission, I would be in favour of it…I am categorical about this. I am neither a bureaucrat nor a technocrat. I am a democrat. That said, we must strictly respect the rules because a Europe without rules would no longer be a united Europe…I can only accept rules if they are contained in the treaty. Of course, politically, I want the president of the Commission to have as broad support as possible…Personally, I would like the president of the Commission who emerges from the European elections to have support that goes, if possible, beyond the political forces from whence he comes.
EUROPE: Then you are not going to be a candidate for the EPP?
José Manuel Barroso: I have always said that there should not be a purely partisan vision of the election of the Commission president. There were two EPP figures, already at the last election (in 2004), who argued against a partisan vision: myself and Jean-Claude Juncker…My party is a member of the EPP and I am very proud of this. I am also very proud of the EPP's pro-European work and the support EPP leaders have already shown me. That said, I am also very proud of the support that Gordon Brown, José Luis Zapatero, José Socrates (Ed: all three from the Socialist family) and Matti Vanhanen (Ed: Liberal) have shown me. This is what the European spirit is. We are not yet in a European system that is similar to a national system. Pro-European political families must understand that they are not each others' enemies but have to fight together against certain extremes that are Europe's real adversaries and who risk making a breakthrough at the European elections…I hope that the major European political families will be able to go into the elections by highlighting what is positive in Europe, even if they don't agree on everything.