We may well have doubts about the wisdom and clear-sightedness displayed by the main European political parties and political groups at the European Parliament in their management of the dossier relating to the choice of the next president of the European Commission.
Regrettable situation. By very explicitly indicating that they supported the candidacy of José Manuel Barroso, the European People's Party (EPP) and the EPP-ED parliamentary group have in practice compelled the other groups to take a position against him - the election campaign demands it. The Socialists have been even more inept in their inability to indicate who their candidate is. Obviously, it is not Agence EUROPE's place to come out in support of any one individual, this is not our role. It does, nonetheless, regret a situation that has developed which will inevitably lead to remarks being made and a polemic surrounding the activity of the Commission, compounded by sharp criticism of the action taken by its president, because this has been part and parcel of all election campaigns since the beginning of democracy. Later on, when the time comes to form the new Commission and distribute the different functions, the rivalry may diminish slightly and cooperation might become possible on certain dossiers. During the campaign, however, where we hit hardest, the more we increase (or believe we increase) our chances. A senior level leader from one of the political groups explained, “I really have to tell voters why they should vote for my party rather than another”.
A group of top-ranking figures (Jacques Delors, Jean-Luc Dehaene and Guy Verhofstadt, see EUROPE yesterday) made an appeal to mobilise the public in a real debate on Europe's future and urged parties to appoint their candidates for the presidency of the Commission. At the same time, Jo Leinen called on the PES (Party of European Socialists) to present voters with an alternative candidacy to that of Mr Barroso and in practice opened the campaign by affirming that the current Commission had failed to control the financial markets and stabilise the labour market. He stressed that voters should not simply support a new political direction but also choose the individuals who will put this direction into practice. At first glance, this appears to make sense.
Socialist gaffes. Where have the Socialists got it wrong? In two cases: its inability so far, to appoint their candidate (and it is this inability to which Jo Leinen has responded) and above all, the fact that several top Socialists have already come out in support of a new mandate for Mr Barroso. This is the case with the British prime minister, Gordon Brown (who is, as we know, a member of the Labour Party and the PES) and his strong support for Barroso's excellent work, development of a stronger, fairer and more prosperous Europe and having shown the way on the question of climate change. It is also the case with heads of government in Spain and Portugal. In the knowledge that most other heads of government belong to the EPP or are quite close to it and that it is the European Council (therefore the heads of state or government) who appoint the president of the Commission (and have to do so unanimously), it appears obvious that in the current circumstances, a Socialist candidate will not have much of a chance, except in the event of spectacular success of the Socialist lists in the forthcoming European elections. This is quite clearly the aim of Jo Leinen and other Socialist leaders who believe it necessary for the PES to appoint its candidate. During last week's meeting, however, between the Socialist leaders, it was only Martine Aubry from the French PS who came out explicitly against Mr Barroso and in favour of an alternative. How should this alternative be appointed given that Mr Brown, Mr Zapatero and Mr Socrates have already given their support to Mr Barroso?
An inappropriate development? I will add that some eminent political scientists consider it inappropriate and even damaging that the president of the Commission has close links with a political group at the European Parliament. In a Union that brings together a large number of member states, there will always be, at the same time, governments of a Socialist denomination and others of the centre, centre-right coalitions and others of the centre left. The Commission should be above these divisions and take into account all the different interests in order to define the European interest. It should not have scores to settle with one or other of the parliamentary groups until the day when the EU becomes a genuine Federation on the model of the United States of America, which cannot be predicted and is perhaps not even desirable.
This is why the title of this column spoke about a “catalogue of gaffes”. (F.R./transl.rh)