CEP Blog

Which parties of government voted against the Commission?

2010-02-10T14:32:01Z

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

Conclusion: Hearing on EU Budget Commissioner

2010-01-12T17:19:20Z

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.

UKIP and Labour at Budget Commissioner Hearing

2010-01-12T10:00:48Z

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.

Conservatives and UKIP absent from Budget Commissioner hearings at European Parliament

2010-01-11T13:05:02Z

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.

In Defence of Van Rompuy and Ashton

2009-11-27T23:04:53Z

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.

New EU Foreign Minister is Alumna of this Department

2009-11-19T20:42:12Z

Commissioner Catherine Ashton, the current European Commissioner for Trade, has just been nominated to the EU's new foreign affairs post. After the Presidency of the European Commission, this is the most powerful post within the European Union institutions. Catherine Ashton is also an alumna of the predecessor of this department at Bedford College, University of London. The Centre for European Politics at Royal Holloway congratulates its alumna on being appointed to the post of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Vice President of the European Commission, Commissioner for External Relations, and President of the European Union External Relations Council.

EU Foreign Minister

2009-11-19T19:45:23Z

Tonight there is much media attention on the appointment of the first permanent President of the European Council but the job with real power is that of the EU Foreign Minister, as the British don’t like to call it. The official title is High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

The Foreign Minister will have control of the powers of the outgoing High Representative in the Council, Javier Solana, and of the Commissioner for External Political Relations, who is responsible for the diplomatic side of the Commission as well as all its foreign policy and development programmes. In addition, the Foreign Minister will be the President of the Foreign Affairs Council. Besides this, it is a post that the first office holder will define.

Who will it be? This is part of a package deal, but one thing is certain. Since the Presidents of the Commission and the European Council will be drawn from the dominant centre-right political family, the deal is that the Foreign Minister must be a Socialist. This clouds questions of accountability because if the Socialists control very few governments and now have their lowest ever share of representation in the European Parliament, why not consign them to opposition? This would be more accountable but would go against the consensual set up of the European Union, which works like a big multiparty coalition. The only way for the European Commission to rain the support of the few leftwing governments like those of Spain and Greece and to enjoy a large majority in the European Parliament, without needing to depend on the British Conservatives and other Eurosceptics, is for the Socialists to be given this job.

So, which Socialist? David Miliband has repeatedly said he doesn’t want it but is this serious? If he did want the job (based on calculations concerned with the likelihood of him not becoming Prime Minister), he could not say so in advance since that would scupper his fall back option of continuing his career in British politics. It would have to be offered to him on a plate. Of course, he might really mean no when he says it, so we just have to wait and see. Another candidate, Massimo D’Alema, has been rejected by the Polish government because he used to be a member of the Italian Communist Party. However, this appointment could be made by qualified majority at the cost of offending an outvoted government. Maybe the post will go to someone else as a complete surprise: we just have to wait.

President of the European Council

2009-11-19T10:38:58Z

Later today we look forward to a decision by the EU Heads of Government on the appointment of the President of the Council. The first thing to note is that this person is not going to be the President of the European Union.

The European Council is the committee of heads of government. It sets long-term agendas for the European Commission to pursue and sorts out problems that cannot be agreed lower down the pecking order of the EU. Until now, the chairman has always been the head of government from the country exercising the EU presidency. Each country chairs for six months in rotation. The current President is the Prime Minister of Sweden.

The idea of the “permanent” President appointed for a renewable term of 30 months was to provide longer-term consistency for the agendas of the Council. Just like the current Prime Minister of Sweden, the permanent President will have the power to shape Council agendas, call meetings of it and broker compromises between the heads of government, the European Commission and the European Parliament. Beyond that, it is what the office holder makes of it. The treaty states that without impinging on the new Foreign Affairs Representative, the President will also represent the EU internationally.

Rotating presidencies of six months each will still apply for all of the Council formations except among the Heads of Government and the Foreign Ministers. When Spain takes over the presidency status from Sweden on 1 January 2010, the Presidents of the European and Foreign Affairs Councils will be the permanent office holders with the Spanish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister being mere members. The Presidencies of all the other councils: agriculture, environment, etc. will continue to be held respectively by the Agriculture and Environment Ministers of Spain. Whether this will create new tension remains to be seen. Will the Spanish Prime Minister insist on “barging in” on the powers of the permanent President?

One final thought: the Treaty forbids the permanent President from holding any ‘national office’. It does not ban non-national office or ‘any other office’. This leaves the door open for the President of the European Commission to be appointed as Council President in the future. Watch this space.

Election of the European Commission

2009-11-15T18:11:52Z

The rules before the Lisbon Treaty declare that the Commission President is nominated by a qualified majority of the governments, and is accepted or rejected by a majority in the European Parliament. These rules have allowed the Commission to be elected by the EP – as a result of EP elections – since 1999. It is only assumed that the Commission is unelected because rival party programmes of different candidates do not feature in election campaigns for the European Parliament, but there is nothing to stop this actually happening.

In September, when it came to voting for or against Barroso, Barroso was the only candidate, having been adopted by the European People’s Party (EPP). The European Conservatives (ECR) and the Liberals (ALDE) announced their support for him. Meanwhile the other pro-European groups, the Socialists and Democrats (SD) and Greens opposed him without having a candidate of their own. They were joined by the European United Left (GUE) and Eurosceptic EFD Group. The result of the vote was 382 votes for Barroso, 219 against, and 117 abstentions.

How did this really break down between groups and nationalities? In the debate on his appointment, all speakers from the EPP and ECR groups gave Barroso their support. This was also the position of the ALDE group, although not of its French, Italian or Dutch D66 members. The Socialists were largely against, although the Portuguese and Slovak parties (both in government) vocally supported Barroso. Other Socialist parties in government – from the UK, Spain, Austria, and the Netherlands either did not comment or were critical and are likely to have abstained. The Green and the Left GUE groups voted against in their entirety. Most of the EFD Group was opposed, although its Italian and Slovak members (in government) voted in favour. The non-attached members, mostly from the extreme right, were for the most opposed. A handful of the latter and a few EFD members were opposed to the concept of the Commission but voted in favour because they wished to ratify decisions taken by sovereign national governments.

Calculating the totals for and against Barroso on the basis of statements made in the debate, allowing for “deviant” parties with their groups like the Portuguese Socialists or French members of the ALDE group, almost perfectly predicts the actual breakdown in the secret ballot of 382 votes for Barroso, 219 against and 117 abstentions.

We need to wait a few more weeks to see the support that the entire Commission will get in a non-secret ballot.

Is Berlusconi's party unconstitutional?

2009-10-16T15:09:55Z

In writing what follows, I want to ask a question rather than answer it and this question should be asked. If Berlusconi’s party, the People of Freedom, is fascist, that would render it unconstitutional. The twelfth final provision of the Italian Constitution written in 1947 states:

‘It shall be forbidden to reorganise, under any form whatsoever, the dissolved Fascist party.’ See page 40 of http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/statico/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese_01.pdf

The People of Freedom certainly does not take the form of a fascist party from the first half of the twentieth century, but is it an updated version thereof? Perhaps we should first think by comparison of the extent to which communist, socialist and even Christian democratic parties have changed since the 1940s. They are all very different beasts compared to the past. The modern incarnation of the far left is the anti-globalisation movement perhaps mixed with residual militant trade unionism. That kind of leftwing politics is radical but very different from the Stalinism of the 1940s. It is nonetheless communist as many of its supporters are happy to admit in countries like France, Italy, Greece or Portugal. Christian democratic parties like the CDU in Germany and CD&V in Belgium have likewise changed from being closely linked to the church and traditional values to being modern, mixed parties competing in a secular society.

The new fascism of 2009 would also differ significantly from that of 1939. Why do we think that fascist parties would not have evolved? If fascism survives today in another form, it should be subject to the same restrictions that had been applied after 1945 in Italy and Germany. Those four words: ‘under any form whatsoever’ were drafted with the intent of giving maximum judicial discretion to the Italian Constitutional Court to act against any recurrence of fascism in a different form.

Let us look the People of Freedom in terms of style and history. In the last years, Berlusconi has personally attacked the judiciary and the media he does not control, delegitimising the authority of the guarantors of the rule of law and freedom of information. If he loses an election, as in 2006, he accuses the opposition of ballot rigging for which he is given unquestioned media coverage by his own channels. He paints even his most moderate opponents as “communists” thereby undermining their legitimacy even to be an opposition in the eyes of his own supporters. This is typical behaviour of a rightwing authoritarian. His real control of the media (rather than his fantasy that it is all controlled by “communists”) is pervasive and is of the same dimensions as that possessed by any authoritarian regime.

One of the components of the People of Freedom is the former neo-fascist party, the MSI (Italian Social Movement). This was founded in 1946 by Giorgio Almirante, an advisor to Mussolini’s Minister of Culture in the collaborationist RSI (Italian Social Republic) regime of 1943-45. The acronym MSI represented continuity with the RSI and is said to have stood for ‘Mussolini you are immortal’. The Italian Constitution was not applied against this party since it was not viewed as a threat. Many former members of the MSI now in the People of Freedom are fascist in outlook. In 2006 Alessandra Mussolini, when confronted on television by a leftwing transvestite, said that it was ‘better to be a fascist than a poof’. In September 2008, Berlusconi’s Defence Minister called for the commemoration of the pro-nazi paratroopers of the RSI regime as patriots. Meanwhile the Mayor of Rome, also a member of the People of Freedom, refused to condemn the fascist experience prior to 1938 when the racial laws were introduced, on the grounds ‘many people signed up to it in good faith’. Presumably it was acceptable to repress and torture opposition supporters, gas thousands of Ethiopians in 1936, and have the Italian Air Force carpet bomb Guernica during the Spanish Civil War, all of which happened before the enactment of the racial laws.

Finally there is the main campaign advertisement of the People of Freedom from the elections of 2008. This is a video entitled: ‘Meno male che Silvio c’è’, or thank goodness for Silvio. What is sinister is the backdrop of the final part of the video at precisely 3 minutes. This is only the most famous fascist era totalitarian monument in Italy: the Italian Pavilion at the World Expo of 1942 that never happened. Of the thousands of squares and palaces in Italy that could provide a scenic backdrop for one’s theme tune, the selection of this one cannot have been an accident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXf-YbsSh0Y

Imagine if the French Minister of Defence or Mayor of Paris made remarks about the Vichy regime similar to those made about Italy under fascism. Imagine if the backdrop to an advertisement for the German CDU were the Nuremburg stadium. We cannot imagine this, but this is what happens in Italy’s main party of government. Let us just remember that twelfth final provision of the Italian Constitution:

‘It shall be forbidden to reorganise, under any form whatsoever, the dissolved Fascist party.’