No cut-and-dried answer. It isn't often that an experienced politician of such undeniable calibre is as coy and fumbling in the face of reporters' questions as was Martin Schulz at a press conference on Thursday (see yesterday's newsletter). Some of the reporters queried him about the EP Socialist Group's views (now renamed the “Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats”) on whether Jose Manuel Barroso should be the new president of the European Commission, irrespective of when the vote is actually taken. Schulz, who chairs the Socialist Group, clearly and explicitly argued against the vote happening this month but would not commit to his group wanting the vote to take place in the autumn.
Martin Schulz said that for the moment, the Socialists wanted to avoid voting in July and if they were forced to vote in July, they would unanimously vote against Barroso. He pointed out that no formal decision had been taken by the European Council to designate Barroso as its candidate.
Some reporters, however, seeking banner headlines, or due to ideological concerns, demanded that Schulz make clear what the Socialists think about Barroso's merits. Schulz was at pains to explain that the Socialists wanted any future president of the European Commission to submit a programme first and for this programme to include the fundamentals of the Socialist manifesto - rather than voting for a five-year president without knowing what he or she was planning to do. But reporters would not give in and asked the question in a different manner: “Do you want a change of programme or a change of individual? Who is your candidate?” The chair of the Socialists set out various important democratic principles. In his personal view, Barroso was not the right person, but other people didn't agree with this. Heads of state, even the Socialists, had unanimously backed Barroso, and he also had the backing of the party with the greatest number of MEPs: “I have taken note of this and respect their opinion.” Would Schulz rather see a different candidate from the same party with the greatest number of MEPs? It would not be for the EP to suggest anyone else, but the European Council. What would be unacceptable is for a president of the Commission who had not published his or her programme in advance to be appointed by a parliamentary majority - which would necessarily have to include the Eurosceptics to win the vote.
Other requirements. On the rumours that the Socialists are split over the issue, Schulz said that the party was unanimous in opposing a vote in July 2009, adding that the new president of the Commission would have to set out his/her ideas about which Socialists to choose as commissioners and vice-presidents and the individual responsibilities they should have. He called for greater clarity about which treaty would apply - the Treaty of Nice or the Lisbon Treaty? If it were the Lisbon Treaty, then the other two jobs created by the Lisbon Treaty would need to be filled: a long-term chair (president) of the European Council and a high representative who would also be a vice-president of the Commission and chair of the External Relations Council. There are plenty of aspects to this situation which cannot be answered by a simple “yes” or “no”. At the moment, only one thing has been decided for the Socialists - no vote in July.
Are the Liberals any more flexible? The views of the liberal (ALDE) group seem to be more nuanced. The criteria are not yet in place for it to be able to decide in July on the president of the Commission, but it believes that things could change by 14 July (see our newsletter 9933). I will return in this column to the future of the group under the chairmanship of Guy Verhofstadt.
The Swedish Presidency agrees to wait. In defence of the Swedish Presidency's backing for an immediate vote at the EP on the president of the new European Commission, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt explained the utility of the Swedish Presidency working alongside a president of the Commission who has been definitively and clearly appointed in the job, to enable the Swedish government to be able to cooperate with the head of the Commission with full democratic legitimacy. This is a perfectly reasonable desire, given the sheer scale of the work facing the EU in the next six months.
This very Friday, however, after meeting the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, Fredrik Reinfeldt announced a change of view due to the political situation and above all, a desire to avoid the approval by a single political party at the EP, backed by the Eurosceptics, of the appointment of the new Commission president. Reinfeldt is no longer calling for an immediate vote (see next page and Sarkozy's comments). It should nevertheless be stressed that the Swedish Presidency's desire for effectiveness in action should not be ignored and the urgency of a new Commission president should be recognised in order to ensure the EU operates properly over the next six months.
(F.R./transl. fl)