The parliamentary debate and vote for the new president of the European Commission call for a few comments that are unrelated to each other but which are, in my opinion, important.
1. The figures. The results of Wednesday's vote indicate that: a) even with the application of the Lisbon Treaty rule (which, for the nomination of the Commission president, requires that the votes in favour are greater than the number of parliamentarians by at least half), Mr Barroso would have been elected. The new treaty requires 378 votes in favour, out of a Parliament of 754 members. Mr Barroso obtained 382 votes (out of 718 votes cast); b) the votes cast by the “Eurosceptics” were not decisive in the final result.
2. The procedure. It is not exactly the case (as two MEPs wrote) that it would have been enough to wait three weeks for the Parliament to give its decision on the presidency of the Commission under the Lisbon Treaty, if the Irish vote yes in the referendum. This treaty will not in fact be in force until the beginning of next year and in the meantime, the Commission would have had to have limited its activity to “current affairs”.
3. Mr Barroso evolves. Mr Barroso has often been criticised for having ideas that belong more to the past, particularly his position on the war in Iraq and his “liberal” line in economic affairs (without even mentioning a few revolutionary positions dug up from his university student days). He has been taken to task for not having understood, in advance, the dangerous behaviour displayed by the financial world and for not having seen the financial crisis on the horizon. He was certainly not the only one; which political leader can claim to have anticipated the events in this domain?
As for his pro-European convictions, it is normal that they have progressively become more consolidated and enriched during his presidency of the Commission. How many other political figures, having spent time in Brussels, have not had a similar experience? As a veteran observer, I could give countless examples of pro-European convictions that have been formed and consolidated through a developing comprehension of what European construction really means. I can only remember one example at the Commission that went in the opposite direction, Ralf Dahrendorf. On the other hand, how many examples counter this? The most spectacular is perhaps that of Lorenzo Natali! We can even ask Guy Verhofstadt about his initial impressions regarding how Europe worked when he used to take part in the “budget” sessions at the Council. I don't know all the details of José Manuel Barroso's past as a young university student or national political figure. I consider it more interesting and useful to follow and evaluate what he believes now and what he is proposing to do.
4. The Eurosceptics in Strasbourg. Martin Schulz, the president of the Social Democrats at the EP, believes that the presence in this parliament of a significant number of Eurosceptics who reject many aspects of European construction and its supranational objectives, is regrettable. I believe, on the contrary, that this presence is positive. Once the Eurosceptics exist, and once the votes they obtain indicate that part of the population is following them, it is preferable for them to be able to express themselves within the institution representing the people. Their presence proves that it is false to claim that Eurosceptics are unable to freely express themselves in the institutions. It becomes possible to counter their inaccurate assertions and respond to them when their arguments are untrue (- we witnessed in Ireland that this often occurs). It also allows for the possibility (when this arises) to get them to understand that the EU is not about encroaching on national identity. Time spent in Brussels or Strasbourg is often an important learning curve (see the previous point).
5. The debate should focus on the substance and root of the problems. Having alluded to Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Barroso above, I will now add that last week, the former was asked in a press conference about the relationship between the two of them “after the events of 2004” (related to the nomination of the president of the European Commission). Mr Verhofstadt replied: “I had forgotten about the events you are talking about, and in any case they have nothing to do with the current debate. What my political group is now seeking is commitment in support of providing own resources for funding the Union, and for European (not national) monitoring of financial activities. The discussion focuses on the substance and root of the problems”. Who's going to contradict the wisdom of this remark? (F.R./transl.rh)