Cox demands say over enlarged Commission

Date: 28/11/02

By Dana Spinant

EU LEADERS are at odds over what will happen to the College of Commissioners when ten new countries join the Union in May 2004, some eight months before the present team is due to end its term in office.

The 20-strong College will then be joined by ten additional commissioners, one from each new member state, and organising this future jumbo-Commission poses unprecedented political and practical challenges.

Romano Prodi and EU governments want to cut short the present Commission's mandate to allow a new team of 25 commissioners to begin on 1 November. In the new set-up each state would have one representative, with France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK giving up their second commissioner.

The European Parliament, which has the power of investing as well as sanctioning the Commission, has accused Prodi and the member states of bypassing the assembly. But the Danish EU presidency insists that Parliament will be called upon to approve the proposal to shorten the current commissioners' mandate, which will be included in the Accession Treaty. (The House must approve the treaty before it enters into force.)

Per Stig Moller, Danish foreign affairs minister, announced last week that the governments had agreed to shorten the Commission's mandate to 1 November 2004 (from January 2005). November is the earliest date, according to member states, that the new Commission can start after its president has been nominated by the new Parliament, after the elections of June 2004.

The idea of cutting short the College's mandate to accommodate enlargement was first suggested by Prodi before the summer. EU governments were won over, but not the Parliament.

Pat Cox, the Parliament's president, insisted in a letter he sent to Prodi and Moller last week that 'no definitive decision be made on this important constitutional point before an agreement has been sought and reached with Parliament'. Cox was set to discuss the issue with Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, and Prodi at a mini-summit in Copenhagen today (28 November).

Hans-Gert Pöttering, the leader of the largest group in the Parliament, the European People's Party, echoed that in Strasbourg last week, saying: 'The European Parliament must confirm the new EU Commission and I have no choice but to serve clear notice that Parliament must be included in this debate.'

Even if the new Commission takes office earlier than initially planned, the question remains as to how Prodi's team will be organised between May and November 2004.

Two choices are possible: to redistribute portfolios between the 30 Commission members by splitting some of the areas covered by present commissioners, or to avoid giving specific mandates to the newcomers. The former option would harm the efficiency of the Commission, by fragmenting dossiers and making inexperienced commissioners step in at the end of the College's term.

The second choice would give the new member states' representatives second-class status.

Under a confidential plan discussed by the EU governments' permanent representatives in Brussels, still to be seen by the foreign affairs ministers, commissioners joining the College on 1 May 2004 would have full voting rights, but no portfolio.

The Parliament would be excluded from the nomination of the enlarged Commission: 'No scrutiny, nor approval by outgoing European Parliament. Approval by governments of member states,' states the document.

According to the plan, after the elections for the new Parliament (10-13 June 2004) the European Council would nominate the president of the Commission for the 2004-2010 term. In July, the nominee would seek approval from Parliament. Then he/she would consult member states on candidates for the new Commission.

In August-September, the Parliament would organise 'get-to-know-you' hearings with each commissioner.

The vote by MEPs to approve the new Commission would take place in October, with the new team taking office on 1 November.

However, the plan risks irking MEPs whose role in the scrutiny of the enlarged Commission would be reduced: the House would have no say over the addition of the ten new commissioners.

But any other solution would complicate the process, a Council official told European Voice. A Commission spokesman said he hoped the new member states would accept the plan, even though their commissioners would not initially have a portfolio.

Alojz Peterle, who represents the candidate countries on the praesidium of the Convention on the future of the EU, believes the plan is fair. 'Let's be pragmatic about this, there is no point in redistributing the commissioners' mandates just months before the end of their term.

'At the same time, those months between May and November will be a very good learning period for the new commissioners,' said the Slovene.

However, officials say a more elegant way of enlarging the Commission without redistributing the mandates might be for Prodi's team to resign in May, after the addition of new commissioners, and to act as a 'caretaker' College until November.

Such a symbolic resignation would protect the sensitivity of both new member states and the Parliament without affecting, in practical terms, the functioning of the Commission.

Incoming commissioners would have no portfolios, but this would be perceived as a transitional arrangement.

And, although the Parliament would not be involved in the scrutiny of the enlarged Commission, this would be easier to accept as Prodi's jumbo-team would only have caretaker status.

EU leaders are at odds over what will happen to the College of Commissioners when ten new countries join the European Union in May 2004, some eight months before the present team is due to end its term in office.