It has the potential to be a trial of strength for the European Parliament, but MEPs seem to lack the appetite for a confrontation with commissioners.
Over the course of seven days beginning next Monday (11 January), the European Parliament will hold hearings for the 26 people nominated to become European commissioners in the second administration of José Manuel Barroso.
In theory, the stage is set for a trial of strength between, on the one hand, the Parliament and, on the other, the European Commission and the national governments that nominated them. But in practice the MEPs seem to have little appetite for a contest.
Six months ago, when Barroso was seeking endorsement from the Parliament for a second term as Commission president, the MEPs were more than ready to make him sweat, determined to extract promises as to his future conduct.
When a Commission was last nominated, in the autumn of 2004, the Parliament scored a famous victory, obliging Barroso to change his line-up of commissioners. On that occasion, the support of the centre-right European People’s Party group was not sufficient to assure approval of the nominations and the centre-left, Liberals, Greens, and Eurosceptics together mustered enough opposition to oblige Barroso to go back to the national governments to seek changes.
But a repeat of the events of 2004 seems unlikely. Back then, for a variety of reasons, opposition to the nomination of Rocco Buttiglione, Italy’s European affairs minister, coalesced. MEPs variously objected to Buttiglione’s views (or reports of his views) on homosexuals, immigrants and women, while his Roman Catholicism was a provocation to some anti-clerical MEPs.
It was the strength of opposition to Buttiglione that destablised Barroso’s line-up, but the centre-right was adamant that he should not be the only victim. So Latvia’s Ingrida Udre, who had been a surprise (and unwelcome) nomination to replace Sandra Kalniete and who performed indifferently in her Parliamentary hearing, was withdrawn, and László Kovács, Hungary’s commissioner, was forced to switch dossiers from energy to tax, after performing poorly in his hearing.
One of the lessons of 2004 is that if the line-up is to be rejected, it will not be because of just one nominee. Political balance will demand more than one change. So the threshold for a rejection is higher than might at first appear.
While it is still possible to find MEPs who believe that it is a good general principle for the Parliament to exercise its prerogative and to reject a couple of candidates, such an outcome is unlikely. Delays to the Lisbon treaty have already put off the advent of a new Commission from 1 November to 1 February at the earliest. What was supposed to happen was that after the European Parliament elections in June 2009, MEPs would approve a new Commission president and then hold hearings for nominated commissioners immediately after the summer break. They would have held a vote on the Commission in October so that the new team could take over on 1 November. With that timetable, the MEPs might have sought a repeat of 2004, challenging Barroso’s nominees. But that timetable was impossible, given the uncertainty over whether the Nice treaty or the Lisbon treaty would apply, because it affected how many commissioners would be appointed.
What the Parliament wants now is to get the new Commission in place, so that lawmaking can resume in earnest, allowing MEPs to exercise their new Lisbon treaty powers – over agriculture, fisheries, trade and justice, for example.
Andrew Duff, a UK Liberal Democrat MEP, is in charge of organising the hearings for the commissioners. He does not expect a major confrontation and says that the approvals process is designed to be free of political vendettas. He says that the biggest danger for commissioners is “accidents” in the hearings if they perform badly, either showing that they have not mastered their subject-matter, or upsetting MEPs with their views.
He wants candidates to be judged on their suitability for the post of commissioner and the portfolio they have been given.
At one point, MEPs from Hungary’s centre-right Fidesz pary were pushing the EPP group to take a tough stance against any nominees with a communist past, including those who had trained in Moscow. This was expected to mean a potentially rough ride for Štefan Füle, the Czech candidate, and Maroš Šefc?ovic? from Slovakia. But the EPP’s position is softer than Fidesz’s hardline stance. Joseph Daul, the leader of the EPP group, has said publicly that those living under communism could not choose where they studied, effectively absolving them of association with oppressive regimes.
Conversely, in November, some centre-left and Liberal MEPs were gunning for Rumiana Jeleva, Bulgaria’s former foreign minister to whom Barroso has assigned responsibility for humanitarian aid and crisis response. Critics cited her limited political experience and allegations about her husband’s business activities. Members of the centre-left Socialists and Democrats group also resent comments made by Boyko Borisov, Bulgaria’s centre-right prime minister who nominated Jeleva, about members of the previous Socialist government in Bulgaria. He effectively accused them of corruption. But Jeleva, a former MEP, has a very good relationship with Daul and the efforts to dismiss her would be strongly resisted by the 265-strong EPP group.
Parliament sources now say that there is little appetite for a tit-for-tat battle over rejecting each political family’s candidates.
The candidate-commissioners, who spent the Christmas holiday swotting up on their dossiers and were subjected to rehearsals this week, ought to be quietly confident. If they can avoid self-inflicted wounds, their place in the Commission’s Berlaymont building for the next four and three-quarter years should be assured.
Click Here: Cheap FIJI Rugby Jersey