Crisis demands swift decisions on the new European Commission

We are now heading for more unstable waters as the current Commission nears its end of term-in-office and the fate of the Treaty of Lisbon hangs in the balance. Commissioners depart in growing numbers for the safe havens of national politics or European Parliament. Luckily, Neelie Kroes, the competition commissioner, waves the flag in the one area where a strong Commission is a must - respecting rules of the single market. For the new member states, this makes the Commission a temple of God since they would never be able to raise the cash for a subsidy contest we are witnessing already.

At the same time, it is clear to everyone working in Brussels that the last year of the cycle is mostly administration and little policy-making. Normally, it is affordable. This time around it is not. Ideally the new European Commission should be appointed as soon as possible. Since elections to the European Parliament are scheduled for early June and the candidate for President of the Commission should represent the winning majority, a fast-track procedure should be instituted for key decisions, including the selection of the President, distribution of tasks among commissioners and hearings in the European Parliament together with the final vote on the new Commission. The incoming team should take over in July at the latest, even if this means that the old one would have to resign ahead of time.

The Commission should be formed on the basis of the Treaty of Nice which is the binding law of the moment. The solution for a smaller college required by the Treaty as a result of enlargement is obvious and discussed for months – the High Representative should be invited to meetings of the college but his or her country of origin would not nominate a commissioner. Fair and simple. Easily transposable into the new situation if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force. This would mean that the High Representative formally becomes Vice-President of the Commission.

The new college will be one of the most important in the history of European integration and member states should nominate heavy weights as candidates. Preferably they should have experience in both the government and the business community. They should be good communicators, well aware of the intricacies of international politics. The new Commission will have to work closely with the member states, finding the right balance between the stick and the carrot. It must be a people’s Commission, with a common touch and openness to the public. It will finally need to do a lot of road-shows, travelling much across the EU to create a feeling of ownership among the twenty seven member states.

The new Commission will be all about shaping a post-crisis future for the European Union. There are three important tenets to it. One has to do with the basics, namely ensuring that the rules of competition, single market and Stability Pact are respected. A stated objective of the new Commission should be to speed up the accession of new member states to the euro zone. The second tenet will be about projecting the policy changes which need to be made in order to ensure a sustainable growth after the crisis. The third one will be about dealing with the unstable world. The Commission has enough competences to design the way for Europe to punch above its weight in foreign relations. The trade commissioner will be on the front-line fighting off the disease of protectionism. There will be five critical dossiers in the future Commission, a type of super-cabinet: competition, trade, economic and monetary union, the likely new dossier of financial services and energy.

Needless to say, Europe is not an abstract concept but a political project, the future of which is decided by the member states and not by the Brussels bureaucrats. If there is no consensus among the member states for the renewal of European integration, the most efficient Commission will not help. It is above all about the three big states, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Europe has a future if at least two out of the three are in agreement. Given their state of mind at the moment, it seems that the crisis will lead to either to a loser form of integration when member states grow used to solving things themselves or a new rationality by means of which the EU becomes an insurance policy against the turmoil all around. Both options are still possible.

It is often believed that progress in European integration results from crises. It is partly true but mostly wishful thinking. There are only crises which Europe has survived and drew its conclusions. Not every crisis has to have that effect. Europe is mortal and we should take care of her in due time. This means equipping the European Commission, our key institutional innovation, with the power it needs to get its job done.

* Author is President of demosEUROPA – Centre for European Strategy

For further information:

DemosEuropa