20 September 2024

EPC's Zuleeg, Emmanouilidis: Reactions to the next Commission

Overall, Commission President von der Leyen has got much of what she wanted. Yes, gender balance has not been achieved (60:40 in favour of males) but it looks better than at the outset and the top leadership is largely female, with five of the seven top leadership positions..

After some last-minute drama, including Commissioner Breton resigning acrimoniously, the set-up of the new von der Leyen Commission has been announced, and the portfolio allocation and mission letters have been revealed. Subject to the last-minute discussions in Slovenia and, of course, the hearings in the European Parliament, this gives us a much better indication of the direction of travel.

Overall, Commission President von der Leyen has got much of what she wanted. Yes, gender balance has not been achieved (60:40 in favour of males) but it looks better than at the outset and the top leadership is largely female, with five of the seven top leadership positions – including the Commission President, the four Executive Vice-Presidents, and the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy – all being women. Yet, much work remains to make the Commission reflect better the diversity of Europe’s population, along all its dimensions.

A number of portfolios have been rejigged to reflect the new priorities of this mandate, putting a much greater emphasis on (economic) security/defence and competitiveness. But there are also some points worth noting, where there are potential difficulties in delivering the objectives in the next mandate, building on our analysis:

More than ever, there are a plethora of cross-cutting themes and overlaps between portfolios. This structure further strengthens the role of the Commission President in the new construction but also increases the risk of bottlenecks. It will also have to be clear who has the authority to take the policy forward, which is linked to the enhanced role of the Executive Vice-Presidents: do they have effective authority over a cluster of Commissioners and how are trade-offs and synergies between clusters addressed (for example, the role of defence and security in enhancing the EU’s industrial competitiveness)? In this context, the portfolio of the Executive Vice President for Cohesion and Reforms does not seem well integrated into the overall structure, and does not appear well adapted to the new challenges the EU faces.

There will have to be new and innovative ways to deliver the key priorities, together with the member states, so the need for structural innovations, as well as differentiated integration inside or outside the EU treaties remains strong.

There is reference to the implementation of the Draghi, Letta and Niinistö reports, but delivery would have been aided by a greater prioritisation and concretisation of exactly what will be taken forward in the first instance (e.g. the Capital Markets Union?) and by whom, especially given the manifold political trade-offs that still have to be clarified when implementing the new Commission’s programme.

Some horizontal themes could have been highlighted strongly across all portfolios, asking each Commissioner in their mandate to take forward concrete actions to contribute to overarching goals. For instance, addressing the implications of the watershed moment of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including enlargement or the need for Europe to greatly accelerate technology investment, development and adaptation to enhance competitiveness and accelerate the necessary transitions, as well as reduce dependencies, could have been stronger.  

While there is a Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness, this does not reflect the need to take an intergenerational approach across all policy areas....

 more at EPC

© European Policy Centre EPC