29 April 2014

Paul N Goldschmidt: The debate surrounding the European "presidencies"

The Lisbon Treaty requires the Council to "consider" the results of the European elections in its deliberations concerning the designation of the Commission President. There is, therefore, no expressed or implied mandatory obligation relative to the selection of the candidate. He shall, nevertheless, as in the past, need the consent of the Council and a majority vote by the Parliament. The contested remarks voiced by President Van Rompuy are perfectly compatible with these procedures.

On the other hand, by insinuating that the Council is under the obligation to present to the Parliament the candidate selected by the largest political grouping, the postulants, Messrs Junker and Schultz, are seriously compromising the democratic character of the procedure. The Parliament would nevertheless be able to counter such a biased interpretation insofar no single party will win an absolute majority – as will most likely be the case – leading necessarily to further negotiations.

An additional “fault” made by the two candidates is to imply an enhanced democratic legitimacy to the vote cast by the elector because, to the extent their narrow interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty prevailed, it should have major political consequences with regard to the way the presidential mandate is to be carried out. In particular, it should no longer be possible for the Commission to simply “withdraw” a proposal that would fail to obtain the consent of Parliament; rather, having lost the support of “their” majority it should resign. Indeed, there must be an appropriate equilibrium between the method of designating the President and the College of Commissioners and their responsibility in front of the Parliament.

An evolution in that particular direction would be a fundamental and highly desirable transformation in the functioning of the institutions: it would establish the responsibility of a “European government” in front of a democratically elected assembly; it would entail a redefinition of the role of the European Council. Such changes would however require a new Treaty which is not currently on the cards.

...

What appears clear is that an institutional conflict between the European Council and the newly elected Parliament concerning the legitimacy of the procedure designating the next Commission President will only benefit euro sceptics. While commending without reserve the pragmatism involved submitting rival candidates to an indirect popular vote, it is imperative that this innovation be viewed as a further step in the process of strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the European construction and not as an impediment to any further significant integration of the Union in the interests of all of its citizens. 

Full article

Paul N Goldschmidt, Director, European Commission (ret); Member of the Advisory Board of the Thomas More Institute

Tel: +32 (02) 6475310 / +33 (04) 94732015 / Mob: +32 (0497) 549259

 E-mail: paul.goldschmidt@skynet.be / Web: www.paulngoldschmidt.eu

© Paul Goldschmidt