MEPs demand more presidential control

Date: 03/12/1998

By Gareth Harding

MEPS are pushing for greater control over the choice of future European Commission presidents as well as the political direction they take while at the helm.

A report due to be adopted by the European Parliament next month calls for the next head of the Commission to be chosen from a list of candidates put forward by European political parties.

The aim of the move is to link the make-up of the Commission much more closely to the outcome of European Parliament elections and give MEPs greater leverage over the Commission's political priorities.

The Parliament also hopes that making election campaigns more 'presidential' will increase public awareness of, and interest in, European polls, which in recent years have suffered from low voter turn-out and media apathy.

The report's author, German Christian Democrat MEP Elmar Brok, argues that it is "important to combine issues with faces", to personalise the campaign.

But British Socialist Richard Corbett, while agreeing that presidential candidates would spice up any future election campaign, warns that there is a danger that the majority who supported the incoming president would feel "bound to back everything he/she does during his/her term of office".

Although any proposals adopted by the Parliament are not legally binding, the Commission is unlikely to ignore its suggestions.

Since the Maastricht Treaty was ratified in 1994, MEPs have played an important role in the appointment of European Commissioners and this power is set to be extended when the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified next year. The present Commission President Jacques Santer will also remember the shock he received when the Parliament only narrowly approved his appointment to the post in 1995.

At present, the Commission president is nominated by EU heads of state and government after consulting MEPs. The president-designate, together with EU leaders, then chooses a team of Commissioners and the entire line-up is subject to a vote of approval by the Parliament.

Under present rules, this vote is merely consultative. But when the next Commission president is chosen by EU leaders, probably next summer, the Parliament's decision to approve or reject their nominee will be binding. The new president will also have considerably greater powers to influence the political direction of the Commission than the current chief.

Brok's report, which has been drawn up for Parliament's institutional affairs committee, says that when proposing the future Commission president, governments should take account of the outcome of the European elections and the candidates nominated by the political parties. It also calls on the Parliament to base its vote on the president-designate on the latter's promises regarding the political guidelines he or she intends to follow whilst in office.

The Parliament's institutional affairs committee hopes the new method of choosing the Commission chief can be up and running in time for next year's Euro-elections. However, MEPs privately admit that this is unlikely.

It is also rather doubtful whether EU governments will agree to let the Commission's hands be tied by the Parliament. When the idea was first mooted earlier this year by former Commission President Jacques Delors, there was little enthusiasm for such an approach among Union governments or the Commission.

However, the Parliament's stance is likely to be boosted by the results of a survey of MEPs carried out by SOS Europe, a loose grouping of federalist parliamentarians. A clear majority of the 100 members who responded to the questionnaire agree that the future president of the Commission should be chosen from a list drawn up by MEPs.

In addition, say members, the future president should present the Parliament with a precise five-year programme and a break-down of individual Commissioners' responsibilities before any investiture vote.

A slim majority of the MEPs who responded to the survey also believe that the Commission boss should favour a federal Europe, although they say other Commissioners need not necessarily be ardent federalists or even in favour of the Maastricht Treaty.

However, a balance between male and female Commissioners is considered essential by both the institutional affairs committee and most MEPs surveyed. At present, only a quarter of the college are women.

MEPs are pushing for greater control over the choice of future European Commission Presidents.