EUROPEAN DIARY:In EU politics, plum appointments are rarely made without a little bit of drama, writes JAMIE SMYTH
TO NOMINATE or to intend to nominate? That is the question driving European Commission president José Manuel Barroso and his closest political advisers crazy this week. Barroso, the Portuguese former prime minister who has led the EU executive for the past five years, has made no secret of his desire to stay in the post for a second term. After months of lobbying EU capitals he finally declared his candidacy for the post last week.
Barroso should be a shoo-in for the job, principally because no one else has emerged as a contender. Across the main European political groups he has already won unanimous backing from his own political family, the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP). He has also won support from three Socialist prime ministers: Britain’s Gordon Brown, Portugal’s José Socrates and Spain’s José Luis Zapatero. This has torpedoed the candidacy of the one possible rival, former Danish prime minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen.
So when EU leaders meet in Brussels this week it would seem to most casual observers that they have a relatively simply task of renominating Barroso. But in EU politics plum appointments are almost never made without a little bit of drama, a dose of complicated legal ambiguity and perhaps even the odd Machiavellian manoeuvre.
Ireland’s failure to ratify the Lisbon Treaty is making things more complicated for Barroso, as some EU states want to delay his formal nomination and ratification until the new treaty enters into force. France and Germany are advocating that EU leaders make an interim political decision on his nomination this week and wait until Ireland votes in its second referendum in the autumn before formally nominating the commission president.
A legal argument can be made for delaying a formal appointment, as the structure of the new commission and the process for ratifying the president differ depending on the EU treaty in force. Under the rules in the Nice treaty, the number of commissioners appointed in 2009 must be lower than the number of EU states, which means at least one country would lose its representative on the commission if Lisbon is not ratified. By appointing Barroso now, Portugal would be assured a commissioner while other EU states would not.
Legal purists also point to the slightly different ratification procedure for the post of commission president under both EU treaties. Under Nice a simple majority (of MEPs who vote) of the European Parliament is needed to approve a president, while under Lisbon, an absolute majority (the majority of all 736 MEPs) is required. This may require Barroso to be re-ratified under the Lisbon procedure if the treaty enters force. The Franco-German push for a political rather than formal legal decision on Barroso’s re-nomination is also motivated by political rather than legal concerns. French president Nicolas Sarkozy is lobbying hard to obtain a plum economic portfolio such as internal market or competition for the next French commissioner. He knows he will retain more bargaining power while Barroso requires French support for his candidacy as commission president.
Berlin would also prefer a delay because it holds a general election in September and cannot propose its candidate for the commission until the result is clear. It knows that as soon as Barroso is appointed, other member states will begin nominating their own commissioners in the hope of securing a decent commission job. Germany doesn’t want to be at the back of the queue come the autumn when it decides on its candidate.
Delaying Barroso’s appointment until the autumn when Lisbon is expected to enter into force would also create more options for the distribution of two new EU jobs – president of the European Council and a new beefed-up EU foreign affairs chief.
Selecting three candidates rather than two provides more flexibility when it comes to ensuring they represent different political groups and offer geographic balance. This is the scenario most feared by Barroso, who could then face competition for retaining his post.
Sweden, which takes over the EU presidency in July, has called for Barroso to be nominated without delay, arguing that stability is required at a time of crisis. Small EU states tend to rely on the commission during their presidencies and the last thing Stockholm wants is a rudderless EU executive over the next six months. But Ireland, which is normally a supporter of a strong commission, is in a tricky position because it doesn’t want to be seen to prejudge the result of a second Lisbon referendum.
A further complicating factor is the position of the political groups in the European Parliament. The EPP has already rejected a suggestion by Sarkozy that the parliament could vote in July on the basis of a declaration of political support for Barroso. Without the formal blessing of EU leaders “we couldn’t vote in mid-July”, EPP president Joseph Daul told AFP last week. But many MEPs are also anxious to ensure the parliament is consulted about the nomination before a decision is taken by EU leaders, which is an innovation introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. As one diplomat admitted yesterday the whole thing is a bit of a mess, leaving Barroso facing a few nervous weeks ahead.
