As 2009 draws to a close, a new European order is taking shape, although admittedly with a whimper rather than a bang. The Lisbon Treaty has finally staggered into life. The member state governments have chosen the first ever full time Council President and a new and more powerful High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, although only after a very unedifying process. Jose Manuel Barroso has announced his new Commission, confirming in the process the European decline of the Socialists and the rise of the Liberals.

This process will not, however, be complete until the New Year because the Commission designate, including the High Representative, still has to be approved by the Parliament. In January, the Parliament’s committees will hold hearings with the respective candidate Commissioners before the vote is taken at the end of the month.

Although the Parliament can only say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the whole Commission and not to the individual candidates, this is nonetheless a real power that MEPs covet greatly. In 2004 we saw very clearly just how the Parliament can use its powers. The Commission President Barroso was forced to withdraw his nominations and re-jig his team before the Parliament approved it.

The main headlines then were made by the affair of Rocco Buttiglione, the Italian nominee. Buttiglione had been proposed for the Justice and Human Rights portfolio. Yet in many public statements he showed himself to be hostile to the EU’s objectives in civil liberties. He regarded homosexuality as a sin and stated that the primary role of women was ‘to serve the needs of the husband within marriage and procreate children’. He also held controversial views on immigration and asylum. Crucially, when grilled by the Legal Affairs Committee he made it clear that these were not just personal views, but that he would use his position as Commissioner to further his beliefs rather than follow the political line of the Commission. Many MEPs felt, therefore, that Buttiglione was not a suitable candidate for the portfolio he had been given.

Other candidates also fell foul of the Parliament’s committees. Ingrida Udre from Latvia failed to convince MEPs that she was completely innocent of any involvement in a corruption scandal involving her political party in Latvia. Lazlo Kovacs, who was the Hungarian Foreign Minister, was nominated for the energy portfolio, but totally failed to appreciate the importance of the Parliament’s hearings and had not prepared properly – so he floundered in the face of MEPs questions. There were also concerns about conflicts of interest in relation to the Dutch candidate, Neelie Kroes, who had been given the competition portfolio.

What turned these concerns into a full-blown crisis, however, was the inept and incompetent way Barroso handled the situation. The Commission President chose to try and face down the Parliament, refusing at first to discuss the issues raised by MEPs and claiming they simply had a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote with no right to negotiate. Too late, Barroso offered some minor concessions, but also publicly stated that only ‘extremists’ would vote against the Commission. This provocative and obdurate stand so incensed the Parliament that it broke the normal ties of loyalty that exist within political groups and crucially, that exist within governing parties in the member states. It became clear that Barroso would not get approval of his Commission so he withdrew his nominations and the EU was thrown into crisis.

Subsequently, the life of the old Commission was extended while Barroso sorted out the mess. Italy and Latvia were persuaded to withdraw their candidates. Kovacs was given a different portfolio and came through a fresh hearing, and Barroso offered various assurances in relation to the way Kroes fulfilled her role. The new Commission was eventually agreed.

Various lessons should be drawn from these events: Nobody should ever take the Parliament for granted; governments should only nominate serious candidates for the Commission; the President of the Commission should treat Parliament with the respect it thinks it deserves; and candidates should prepare thoroughly for hearings and be on top of their briefs.

Although the Parliament is being forced to operate on a tight timetable, it will still be determined to use its precious powers. It will want to be assured, not only of the competency of each individual candidate, but also how their portfolios relate to each other. For example, it is not immediately clear why we need a different Commissioner for climate action, environment and energy. That appears to be a recipe for confusion.

The Parliament will also want to reassure themselves of the probity of the candidates. The Santer Commission was brought down because of the activities of a couple of Commissioners and the general failure to understand that financial management was part of their responsibilities. Under Prodi and Barroso, and thanks to the reforms of Neil Kinnock, the whole landscape in respect to these issues has been transformed. Parliament will want to ensure that the new Commissioners appreciate that.

Fortunately, the Commission designate is strengthened by containing some former MEPs, who will no doubt brief their colleagues on what is ahead for them. In fact, I have often wondered why the Parliament does not do more to encourage Governments to appoint former MEPs to the Commission. It would certainly improve relations. Nonetheless, January is going to be a very interesting month.

If you found this article interesting please consider donating. Thank you very much for your support!