THE DANGERS OF NEW EUROPEAN APPOINTMENTS (3): A PLEA FOR A FOOTBALL APPROACH
Franklin Dehousse
Professor of international economic and EU law. Many experiences in various universities, business and EU institutions.
?
Europe is half-bankrupt, largely helpless in the face of growing Russian aggression, suffering from multiple dependencies, and threatened like everyone else by climate change. It's high time to inform the public, adopt a serious strategy, and find the best people to implement it. The usual political arrangements (which gave us the fantastically mediocre five years of conflict between Michel and von der Leyen) have become too damaging.
?
And yet the charade continues. After the European Council's decision at the end of June, it moved to the European Parliament, where von der Leyen will be begging for support. So we see negotiations with the political groups to insert bits of phrase into a candidate's speech... and also to distribute posts in the Parliament.
?
For example, the Social Democrat (SD) group is calling for a housing commissioner or a mention of social rights. Real impact: nothing. The European Union has no competence in housing under the Treaties. Nor does it have the necessary financial resources. Social rights have already been defended for 35 years. The Green group is even begging to be included in the von der Leyen majority, in return for other phrases. In this case, the attitude seems even more ridiculous, since according to the German government agreement, the Greens will have the national commissioner if von der Leyen fails. As they will have no other, this advantage seems particularly crucial.
?
In any case, von der Leyen has regularly changed her positions in response to pressure from the Member States, especially Germany, or from protests. Even when she happened to defend a courageous idea, such as increasing the budget, she abandoned it at the first sign of resistance. When the RENEW group asks for commitments on the rule of law, who's to say that the President won't abandon them again, just like she did in the past ? These three groups have announced that they will not accept von der Leyen negotiating support from populist groups. Yet she does so, and there is no reaction.
?
As already indicated, the rejection of a second von der Leyen mandate is fully justified simply on the basis of her many mismanagement failings. It would also have a number of important advantages for the institutions in the future. A) It would allow a search for better candidates. B) It would allow Parliament to draw up a genuine legislative programme first. C) It would show the public that the Parliament has a real and serious say in European action. This would be all the more useful as the Parliament has been largely circumvented during the previous legislature on the grounds of an urgent crisis.
?
The need for a legislative programme with precise proposals is central. It would genuinely bind the coalition parties together. It would reduce the problems of trust between them. It would also show voters that it is the projects that determine the choice of people (at the moment, the parties are proving exactly the opposite, and this gives a disastrous impression of the institutions). This would also be in line with the Treaties, which state that the European Council only sets the general guidelines. The Parliament would thus justify its existence by following - at last - the example of all the Member States with a government coalition. Giving voters the feeling that their vote is really being used for something would reduce the serious crisis of public confidence. Also to combat this crisis, the parties should announce a new system of strong ethical control, covering - without exception - all the institutions to stop the many dysfunctions of the institutions. What's more, with the proliferation of episodes linked to Russia and China, corruption is not only destroying the Union's image, it is also becoming a major security threat.
?
The choice of people should then meet three criteria: balance between the parties, stability of the institutions, and consideration of skills. Here, Europe's political class would do well to learn from the example of football. In this sport, as in others, you don't build the best teams by systematically pushing people from your own village. You take the best players from your own camp, and go out and find the best players from other camps. And you place each player in the area of the pitch that he knows best. It would be important for the European parties to understand that the criteria of competence and experience are also important, especially in the European sphere, and especially in the face of the current threats. This would lead to very different results.
?
For the Commission, good candidates are hard to come by. The Hallstein/Delors profile suggests that it would be better to have someone with a high level of technical competence who is not overly politicised. Unlike the von der Leyen/Michel tandem, he or she should be able to master the issues, demonstrate pedagogical skills and know how to lead difficult debates. The EPP once had a candidate of this type: Alex Stubb. It squandered him on sterile games. The S&D has one: Enrico Letta. Nominating a centre-left candidate with a strong commitment to the single market would be a good compromise, and would also allow for a changeover after 20 years.
?
领英推荐
For the European Council, Mrs Kallas would be a better candidate, on two conditions. A) That she devotes herself primarily to making the European Council work better (which it needs to do), and not, like Michel, to creating chaos in the Union's external representation. B) That she somehow resolves all conflicts of interest represented by her husband. For the High Representative for Foreign Policy, Mr Sikorski would be another effective appointment. With a wealth of experience in the field, he could be given the first vice-presidency, also covering the area of armaments. Both appointments would show that the European Union has clearly understood what is at stake for it in Ukraine, which has not been the case until now. Some will see this as over-representation of Eastern Europe, but it is important to take into account both the threat to the East and other presidencies (ECB or EIB, for example) that have already been allocated.
?
For the European Parliament, we also need to find a strong personality who will be in charge for the entire legislature, which will be a difficult one. By far the best candidate seems to be Mr Weber. In the past, he has rightly been criticised for having no executive experience. His parliamentary experience and knowledge, on the other hand, are excellent. Each institution would thus have a strong president. A regular trialogue would be organised between them.
?
To complete the balance, four other vice-presidents would then be appointed within the Commission (2 EPP, 1 S&D, 1 Renew, and 1 Green). They would cover external relations, the single market, regulation, legal affairs and immigration, and climate change. One of these posts could go to a German, if his or her name is Baerbock or Habeck, for example. Another could go to a French person called Breton or Lemaire. Generally speaking, we need to introduce bonuses into the appointments system to favour good candidates.
?
A recent episode provides a good illustration of Europe's drift. At the end of June, the European Council asked von Der Leyen to present a report on ways of financing increased defence spending. After almost two and a half years of war, this reflects quite a slow mental concentration. (With Jacques Delors, this report would already have been presented in June 2022). Revealingly, von der Leyen did still worse. Even when asked to do so, she did not fulfill her mission, and has contented herself with a few general considerations. It's easier, of course, to embrace Zelensky effusively in front of the cameras. How do you explain that to the people of Ukraine, and also to the Member States neighbouring Russia, who feel more and more threatened every day - and rightly so?
?
Unfortunately, the behaviour of European leaders shows that they have not yet understood the existential shock that Europe is about to face. Barring a miracle (i.e. both a President and two Democrat chambers), the United States will soon be destabilised. In military terms, it will be the biggest geopolitical shock since 1945. In economic and climate terms too, it will further undermine European strategy. We will need a strong political consensus to get through this. If our leaders do not become more serious, particularly in their appointments, and the Union sinks into a sea of crises, they will soon regret it with tears of blood.
?
Franklin DEHOUSSE
For the first parts of this paper, see :
?
--
4 个月On 18ths of July it will be a bit like "Send in the Clowns" - instead of a decent & qualified incoming leadership of the EU, the latter would be badly needed though for correction of failures of present non- leadership under self-serving VDL.