Support for Community integration should represent the priority criterion for appointing the president of the European Commission but this point often goes unmentioned. Parliamentary debates focus on the political leanings of the candidate. José Manuel Barroso indicated that his objective is to be supported by a pro-European majority. Last week, in his hearings at the political groups, he made a number of commitments to satisfy the demands of the different groups and demonstrated concern for pleasing all the political groupings, which is understandable. The participants at these meetings, however, also observed Mr Barroso's feistiness and his spirited responses. He described the image that is sometimes depicted of his positions as a “caricature” and affirmed that “I am portrayed as a neo-liberal or a Conservative, whereas I am in fact a reformer from the centre”. He also affirmed his convictions on financial governance, ecology and support for poor countries.
Concerned Socialists. Leaving to one side the Christian Democrat group (EPP, European People's Party), which is, a priori, on his side, Mr Barroso made a number of overtures of principle to the Socialists: for a more ambitious economic recovery plan; to take into consideration the social effects of any legislative proposal; for efficient regulation of the financial markets and a framework directive on public services (EUROPE 9973) but he found it difficult to make any commitments regarding the Socialists' more controversial demands. Several MEPs, expressed, sometimes sharply, their dissatisfaction. MEPs in this group also called for a Socialist to head one of the two main posts included in the Lisbon Treaty: the stable presidency of the European Council or the high representative for foreign policy (who will be vice president of the Commission at the same time). This appears to suggest that the Socialists consider that the new president of the Commission will definitely come from the EPP…The president of the group, Mr Schulz, in fact announced that he himself and several other MEPs would, nonetheless, vote against Mr Barroso, this Wednesday, unless there were any new developments…
Promises to the Liberals. Barroso agreed to three demands from the Liberals: a) to fight hard, in the imminent negotiations on post-2014 financial perspectives, for the setting up of own European resources in an effort to overcome the paralysing system of national contributions for funding the Community budget; b) in three years' time, to propose a single European system for supervising the financial markets and c) to create a specific portfolio at the European Commission on fundamental civil rights. The president of this group, Guy Verhofstadt, put a lot of emphasis on these three commitments, which will facilitate a majority vote from his group in support of Mr Barroso.
Dissatisfied Greens but…The hearing by the Greens created the most waves simply because it was open to the public and subsequently, to the press. The debate was heated and conflicting. Mr Barroso defended his initiatives in favour of an “ecological” future but several MEPs considered that these are still insufficient and do not go far enough. The co-president of the group, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, ultimately declared: “Today, Mr Barroso has proposed regulations which he would never have considered five years ago. The situation compelled him to evolve. We'll take him at his word. If he has changed, he has to prove it”. And this is an overture?
Question marks. The four groups cited above - EPP, Socialists, Liberals and Greens are, in principle, in favour of European integration and enhancing it. But how many of their members will vote against Mr Barroso? At the same time, the group uniting British, Polish and Czech “Eurosceptic” MEPs (even though there are differences between them) moved towards a “yes” vote. The president of the Socialist Group, Mr Schulz said he got the impression that Mr Barroso's aim was to “have a majority without needing the votes of British Conservatives or the Kaczynski brothers” and added that the Socialists could contribute towards this on the condition that it had written guarantees on social questions. Jo Leinen obseverved that Mr Barroso's commitment to modify the proposal on posted workers is a big step in the direction of the Socialist positions. Will it be sufficient to get enough of them to vote in his favour this Wednesday? Or will Barroso have to add a more explicit commitment in support of the Socialists obtaining the post of vice president at the Commission and high representative for the CFSP and ESDP? Mr Barroso's declaration on Tuesday afternoon (see following pages), as well as the evening debate and especially the vote on Wednesday, will provide answers to these questions. (F.R./transl;rh)