Caution tempers political ambition

Date: 23/01/1997

By Rory Watson

ON PAPER, the current European Commission is the most political in the Union's history. In reality, it is turning out to be one of the more pragmatic as it negotiates the treacherous rapids of an increasingly critical environment.

No other team can boast two ex-premiers, the wide collective experience of 11 former ministers, five other politicians and only two technocrats.

But ever since Danish voters rejected the Maastricht Treaty first time around in 1992, the institution has had to operate against a background of disaffection with the EU.

This cast a shadow over the final days of the Jacques Delors' Commission and has consistently influenced the 20-strong team under President Jacques Santer, which celebrates its second anniversary in office today (23 January).

“Even if you had Europe's biggest political heavyweights in the Commission right now, the situation would be the same. Whatever the institution does, critics invariably present it in a bad light. It is not surprising it is cautious,” explained one senior official.

This climate has convinced the Commission not to launch major new flagship programmes and to emphasise repeatedly the relevance of Union policies to ordinary citizens.

The result has been less jargon, clearer language, and a shedding of much of the arrogance which critics detected in earlier colleges. The Commission has certainly set out to build stronger bridges with other institutions.

Nowhere is this change of behaviour more marked than in the Commission's relations with the European Parliament. Long gone are the days when a ritual gesture in the direction of MEPs sufficed.

Now the Commission is more likely to be looking over its shoulder to ensure it is not ambushed by the Parliament, even though seven of its members were Euro MPs before taking up their current posts.

This change in relationship was clearly heralded two years ago when MEPs subjected the incoming Commission to a series of individual US Senate-style public hearings.

Most came through with flying colours, but a handful received public reprimands. The nature of the relationship had been set and MEPs, using their budgetary powers, have taken an increasing interest in the institution's internal affairs ever since.

It was the Parliament, with the threat of freezing the Commissioners' travel and entertainment expenses, which forced them to provide declarations of any outside financial interests they might have.

The Parliament has pursued other internal administrative reforms. These have ranged from a reorganisation of the Commission's 126 overseas offices to an overhaul of its tourism and small businesses department and, more recently, a reassessment of the way the institution handles health issues.

The Commission's relationship with the Court of Auditors has also changed for the better. Towards the end of the Delors era, relations with the Luxembourg-based financial watchdog had reached rock-bottom. The Commission, its amour propre buffeted by a regular diet of criticism from the auditors, accused the Court of straying into the alien area of policy formulation.

This greater readiness to work with other EU institutions coincides with a recognition within the Commission itself of the need to concentrate on certain unglamorous, but fundamental aspects of its own internal organisation.

This has seen the introduction of sounder and more consistent accounting and financial management techniques throughout the whole organisation, and a strong emphasis on greater cooperation with national authorities on all aspects of EU expenditure.

The practical agenda has disappointed many in the Commission who miss the adrenalin and political buzz of the single market campaign. But defenders of the present approach insist that the ambitious projects are still there: a single currency, treaty reform and enlargement.

But the negotiations on treaty reform are also seen as an added factor behind the Commission's caution. Some worry that an overconfident institution might spark off government attempts to clip its wings.

In contrast to fears voiced over two years ago when Santer was originally appointed to the presidency, the current Commission has not been marked by the unruly behaviour of a few powerful individuals.

One reason perhaps is that the more dominant personalities Manuel Marín, Hans van den Broek and Sir Leon Brittan all have external relations portfolios.

“The heavyweights spend a lot of time travelling. This is very much a travelling Commission,” suggested one insider.

Another explanation lies in the fact that Santer has laid great emphasis on the need for collegiality. Apart from isolated lapses by Neil Kinnock and Monika Wulf-Mathies, and more frequent ones from Ritt Bjerregaard, the line has generally held over the past two years.

“Unlike Delors, Santer does not take personal initiatives and then present them to the Commission. So in that sense there is more collegiality,” explained one observer, although he added: “That does not necessarily mean the Commission works collectively. In some ways, issues are discussed less openly and there is certainly not the confrontation and debate there used to be before.”

This is partly due to the fact that certain policy areas, such as external relations or, more recently, the internal reform of the way health issues are handled, are first discussed by Santer and the Commissioners directly involved before they make their way to the wider team.

It is also partly explained by the political make-up of the team. The left/right ideological differences which exist on paper are (as in many national government coalitions these days) less evident in practice. Pragmatism and an awareness of the likely repercussions of particular courses of action are more the order of the day.

Somewhat surprisingly, the team members who have had the most visible impact over the past two years have been the newcomers rather than the old stagers.

Emma Bonino has been transformed from a little-known Italian Radical into a bundle of Euro-energy championing the Union's humanitarian aid programmes, promoting human rights and spelling out the facts of life to fishermen.

This transformation has been remarkable for someone who was the last member of the team to be appointed and who was initially only given responsibility for managing a paltry 19-million-ecu budget on consumer affairs. Since then she has managed to grab humanitarian aid, fisheries fell into her lap after Norway turned its back on the Union and now she is set to take charge of food safety.

Confirmation of the interest Bonino attracts came last week when, in a virtually unprecedented gesture by a French president, Jacques Chirac invited her to the Elysée for an hour-long chat on EU and wider political issues.

Erkki Liikanen is another who has enhanced his reputation with his imaginative handling of budgetary and personnel policies. He has imposed a longer-term strategic approach on dry, technical issues and placed them nearer the heart of policy-making.

Neil Kinnock has successfully injected energy and momentum into transport policy, Franz Fischler has skilfully put his agricultural knowledge to good use and avoided being tarred by the BSE scandal, and Yves-Thibault de Silguy has shown a safe pair of hands in the highly delicate march towards a single currency.

Of the old hands, Karel van Miert has emerged with the most credit for the principled stands he has taken on competition policy. The decisions have not been easy and have often exposed him to a diet of strong abuse.

But, as one senior official with many years' experience admitted: “When it comes to the others, with the best will in the world, you have to acknowledge that some of them are almost invisible and have been frankly disappointing. The heavyweights are not punching their weight.”

They still have three years of their mandate left to change that perception.