The new European Parliament will adopt its first major political decision on Thursday 9 July. This takes place before the leaders of the political groups decide whether the vote on the new Commission president will be on the plenary agenda on 14-16 July. If they vote “yes”, the European Council will make the nomination of José Manuel Barroso official on 10 July, by written procedure. Barroso has already received unanimous support from the heads of state and government as “the person they imagine appointing as president of the European Commission for 2009-14” (point 6 in the conclusion published in EUROPE 2519 in our EUROPE Documents series”).
The procedure is clear but its implementation is not because the positions of the political groups diverge. Some want an immediate vote, others oppose this, and there is no majority on either side - alliances and compromises (and some political cattle trading) are necessary.
Possible EPP/Socialist compromise but not on calendar. We all know this mechanism and everything associated with it that is both inevitable and at the same time disagreeable. Sometimes we support a candidate not because we consider he is best but as a concession for something in exchange. The European People's Party (EPP) believes that the president of the Commission should belong to the political current that won a clear majority at the elections and its president, Mr Daul, has also proposed a technical agreement to both the Socialist Group (I'll use its old name) and the Liberals that covers: the presidency of the European Parliament (for the second phase of the legislature, the first being reserved for his group); the balanced distribution of parliamentary committee presidencies and other arrangements. The Socialist president, Martin Schulz, however, considers that the technical agreement should only cover how parliament itself works and does not imply any consensus on the Commission presidency. At first glance, it looks like total stalemate; nonetheless, on closer examination we see that Mr Schulz has not ruled out any convergence over Mr Barroso, on the condition that he makes some commitment on the key points in the Socialist Manifesto. This implies clear commitments, which cannot be defined in a matter of just a few days. This is why the Socialists are opposed to an immediate vote at the European Parliament, which they do not believe should take place before the autumn.
A question mark regarding the tactics of Mr Cohn-Bendit. Can the EPP Group therefore count on the support of the Liberal Group with regard to an immediate vote? The opinions in the latter group are far from homogenous and everything depends on its new president and the ongoing contacts with the EPP. The EPP and ALDE do not, in any case, make up a majority and will be obliged to make other alliances. Certain questions raised by Mr Cohn-Bendit have not been given a satisfactory answer: does it make sense to nominate a new Commission on the basis of two different treaties? The nomination of the president would be done by applying the Treaty of Nice (still in force) and the nomination of an entirely new Commission, by applying the Lisbon Treaty. The voting procedure and even the number of commissioners are not the same in both treaties! The democratic orthodoxy of Mr Cohn-Bendit's initial position was dubious. He called for an immediate rejection of Mr Barroso, although the latter's candidacy received almost half of all Parliament's support and total support from the heads of state and government. Mr Cohn-Bendit has altered his tone and objective and is now calling for a preliminary and open debate at the European Parliament on the Commission president, before he is nominated. Cohn-Bendit has explained that if a majority supports Barroso, so be it.
Barroso's line might change. It remains to be seen (and this is essential), whether Mr Barroso himself does not consider it preferable that the vote takes place in the autumn when he will have defined a programme that could obtain the support of the broadest range of political forces, including the new Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (which could, depending on certain conditions, support him, see above).
There is a tendency to consider that the president of the Commission should represent a politically determined current but is this really appropriate in the present phase of European construction? The president has to take action on the good understanding he shares with the European Council, which defines the main orientations; he should have as much support at the EP as possible, without being too tied to a single group and he should preside over a Commission consisting of commissioners from several different tendencies. In my opinion, he should not be beholden to any one given political group. Current manoeuvring might create the unpleasant impression that personal ambitions are sometimes of an excessive nature. It is inevitable that the game of politics also includes these aspects but only as long as they do not lead us to forget what really counts. (F.R./transl.rh)