Usually when you have an economic crisis you make sure politics and institutions are stable to avoid a total collapse. Not so in Europe. European political parties are currently seeking to democratise the election of the European Commission President. They refer to a new provision in place since Lisbon which requires member states to “take account of” elections to the European Parliament when nominating the EU Commission President for approval by the European Parliament. On the whole this is a noble ambition based on the public view of Europe as undemocratic, even if it is a little shaky in terms of legality. Anyway such an approach can become the de facto position if everyone plays along, but it appears they are not!
While the leaders of the main parties are agreed on this approach their enthusiasm is not necessarily shared in all capitals. So we may be facing a conflict between the supranational view of Europe in Brussels which prioritises the ideological persuasion of office holders against the member states who are more interested in their nationality. There are pluses and minuses in both approaches and we should not forget that national governments and national parliaments are key parts of the EU political architecture. However the need for an injection of democracy right in to the top of the EU system is a clear necessity and political groups in the European Parliament have shown transnational ideological politics can work. In short there is politics in Brussels too.
The leaders of the EP groups (not the parties or the common candidates, try and keep up!) have made it crystal clear that they will not be party to any “back-room deals” as this is seen to be the old way of running Europe. Such a logic is clear but we might wonder if it is the behind closed doors nature of the deals or the complete lack of recognition amongst the public of any candidates that may be the issue. Of course it has been reported that the UK is set to oppose any candidate that is too “integrationist”
There are a number of disconnects here. Firstly the European parties have wisely gotten out of the blocs early to establish “facts on the ground” and have presented the leading role of the parliament and its elections as they key democratic moment in the EU. Member states are slower and more cautious and often less keen on such a federalist view. Despite living in the same ideological families politicians in member states see the world very differently to those in Espace Leopold. Scorning the parliament is not a smart play though, just ask Jacques Santer. Indeed the institutional balance has moved even more in the direction of the directly elected body in the 20 years since the downfall of his Commission. Most of all European citizens have simply not kept up with the range of powers the European Parliament has or else they have not been properly informed of them. They will still vote in 27 national elections many blissfully unaware of “top candidates” who will claim credit for their support. Regardless of the reasons the EP is very much on the rise in the inter institutional world in Brussels and bolting the common candidate agenda on may seal the deal.
The desire to rid Brussels of behind closed doors deals while noble is unrealistic. The top job in the EU Commission may go to a person who seems to have a fresh democratic mandate but what about the other positions. Since Lisbon there are effectively two new positions with a President of the EU Council, currently Herman Van Rompuy and the High Representative for Foreign Policy, Catherine Ashton. It is hard to see how these positions and indeed countless others can be allocated without some “horse trading”. If all were elected surely small countries would be the first to complain?
It is now emerging that there are a number of other candidates interested in the EU commission role and who see the “old style” method as the way the post should be filled. In fact they may even have the law on their side as the reference in the EU treaties is far from clear. What does “taking in to account” mean? It could be argued it indicates the general party affiliation of candidates, or indeed merely which groups grew or shrunk in the election. Surely it would not be fair, for example, to rule out candidates from smaller political families in a winner takes all approach? Given the determination of both sides of this process could we be heading for a constitutional stand-off between the European Parliament and the member states?
This may seem like normal EU infighting and with little relevance to people’s lives. However it also appears that the real winners in the forthcoming EU Parliament elections will be the eurosceptics and far right who are also in tune with some of the public’s views. Thus we may be treated to a stand-off between the institutions and member states just after an election in which substantial numbers of people Europe wide have voted for representatives who are opposed to the EU project. It is not clear how such a stand-off would be resolved and we certainly don’t want to wait as long as some member states do to have workable institutions up and running. It would be in everyone’s interest if the Council of the EU and the European Parliament issued a joint detailed view on how this process will work in advance of the public going to the polls.
foreignpolicy.ie 