Yesterday, the European Parliament elected the new European Commission by 488 votes in favour, with 137 against and 72 recorded abstentions.

An interesting fact is that 25 MEPs representing parties that are in government back home in their member state voted against the Commission or abstained. This shows that the Commission is not as popular among the national governments that endorsed it unanimously as may be imagined. Alternatively, parties with ministers in national governments are unable to control their MEPs. This question is most serious for Italy, the Czech Republic and Cyprus. Here is the full list -

Voting ‘No’:

2 MEPs from AKEL in Cyprus – the party of the Cypriot president, Demetris Christofias. If he didn’t like the Commission, why did he provide unanimous support for its nomination? Failing that, he should discipline his MEPs.

2 MEPs from Polish Civic Platform, the party of the Polish Prime Minister, the Polish Commissioner with the Budget portfolio, and the Polish President of the European Parliament.

2 MEPs from the Finnish Green Party. This is a minor partner in Finland’s coalition government, which renominated Olli Rehn to the Economics portfolio in the Commission.

The abstentionists follow. These are MEPs who attended the vote and preferred to record an active abstention rather than to be absent:

All 9 MEPs from the Lega Nord. This is the party of the Interior Minister Roberto Maroni and the Agriculture Minister Luca Zaia. Is the Lega Nord signalling discord with Berlusconi? What about its relationship with Italy’s own Commissioner who holds the Enterprise portfolio? Clearly the Commission can no longer count on Maroni and Zaia to implement EU measures on aviation security, immigration, or agricultural reform tabled by the Commission? What is this party doing in a government when it can’t ratify that government’s choice of Commission?

8 MEPs from the Czech Civic Democrats. The current Czech government is a temporary government supported by all major parties, including the Civil Democrats. It supported the reappointment of Barroso and the nomination of the Czech Commissioner. However, it is unable to deliver the support of its MEPs.

One MEP from Civic Platform.

The MEP from the Slovak National Party, also in government, abstained on the Commission

Janusz Lewandowski performed well at his interview before the joint meeting of the Budget and Budgetary Control Committees of the European Parliament. A Pole from the governing centre-right Civic Platform, he studiously avoided offending most MEPs and committed himself to defending the Common Agricultural Policy and Structural Funds from budgetary cut backs or “renationalisation”. These comments satisfied left and right wing politicians, who come from member states with large farming sectors or poorer regions. He also subscribed to a not very specific reform agenda that included better auditing. When invited by the UK Independence Party’s Marta Andreasen at the end of the meeting to freeze spending increases while 10 to 15 percent of the EU’s annual budget is underspent, he was noncommittal. The Chairman of the Budgetary Control Committee, Luigi De Magistris, also pressured him on the same point asking him to do “naming and shaming” of member states who are irresponsible with EU finances. In response to Anne Jensen of the Liberal Group, he rejected the idea of direct EU taxation even if it would make the EU more directly accountable to the citizens.

Sadly the British Conservatives were absent from the debate, which is disappointing in view of their commitment to cut public spending.

All in all Janusz Lewandowski’s should satisfy the three major groups (EPP, SD and ALDE) and the major recipient interests in the EU. His nomination to this post by Jose Barroso is a symbol of how important Poland has become in the EU and a clear indication that the new Commission is unlikely to propose major changes to the Budget in the lead up to 2012. Lewandowski knows perfectly well that both contributor and recipient member states have enough votes to block a qualified majority for reform and ensure the status quo. The nomination of a Romanian with close links to France to the Agriculture portfolio in the Commission means that changes are even less likely.

A correction is due to the posting below. Marta Andreasen arrived late for the meeting due to bad weather that delayed her journey. Towards the end of the meeting she contributed to the discussions. At the time I wrote yesterday, the first round of debates were happening and there was nobody to speak from the EFD Group. The Conservatives' ECR group was represented by its Flemish member Mr Eppink.

In the closing statements of the debate, another British voice was raised, that of Welsh Labour MEP Derek Vaughan. He asked Janusz Lewandowski whether he would resist any renationalisation of cohesion funds. The leaders of wealthier member states, Gordon Brown among them, have questioned the increase in EU cohesion policy. Brown was known to support renationalisation, suggesting that the UK's poorer regions be subsidised domestically. Since July 2009, Britain's 13 Labour MEPs have been behaving much more like an opposition and in open contradiction of the national party's policy position. Vaughan defence of structural funds is an interesting case of this.

The Committees of the European Parliament commenced hearings on the appointment of the new members of the European Commission today. One of the first, which is ongoing right now, is the Budget Committee's hearing on Janusz Lewandowski, the nominated Commissioner for Budgets.

Representatives of the EPP, Socialist, Liberal and Green groups all asked questions. Next came the turns of the Conservative ECR group and the Eurosceptic group led by UKIP. Oops, they were all absent. The Conservatives' two members of the committee and Marta Andreasen of UKIP ... weren't there. Value for money and the fight against fraud are being debated right now in the absence of British sceptics.

The President-elect of the European Council and the Foreign Minister-elect have both been described as non-entities, but according to which criteria? Herman Van Rompuy is not Tony Blair or Nicolas Sarkozy, but he is the outgoing Prime Minister of a country with a population of 10 million at the heart of the EU. He is a consensus builder who held together a six-party coalition across three language groups in his native Belgium. Although Belgian Prime Minister for less than a year, he has been Speaker of the Belgian Parliament and held senior ministerial rank in the Belgian government for more than a decade.

Catherine Ashton is not well known. Claims that she has never been elected are untrue since she was elected to the European Commission by an enormous majority of MEPs last autumn. During this time she has managed the EU’s trade policy. This is not nothing given that the EU is the world’s largest single market and is a global superpower in economic and trade terms.

The appointments of low-key, consensual figures were preferred by all the governments. Although the appointments could have been made by qualified majority, the governments preferred to reach accord by unanimity. This meant that, with hindsight, it was unlikely that overly charismatic or abrasive personalities would be chosen. The two new offices created by the Lisbon Treaty are nevertheless Van Rompuy’s and Ashton’s to shape. Both of them will have agenda setting power and substantial resources, particularly Ashton. How they use their powers remains to be seen.

Their appointment also shows the importance of party label. As the junior and significantly weakened partner in Europe’s grand coalition, the Socialists were allocated the post of EU Foreign Minister – and indeed they will have few other posts in the new Commission. There was also pressure for the Foreign Minister to be a woman with the ability to build consensus internationally, while being acceptable to the European centre-right. Giving this post to a British candidate also freed up the economic portfolios in the new Commission for the French and Germans.