Comments on: Parliamentary prerogatives II

By: eulogist

eulogist — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:36:04 +0000

(sorry for spamming, guys… I’ll crawl back under my stone after this, but felt I ought to answer this question first:) How is it, up to this point, that portfolios were determined? Did the leaders of the larger member states negotiate among themselves who got which choice portfolio and then present their agreed choices to the President of the Commission as a fait accompli? Or was there more of a role for the Commission President? Formally, the (governments in the) Council decide on the list of names (each proposing one of the Commissioners), then the Commission President decides on the portfolios, presents the result to Parliament, which gives its consent (or not), whereupon the final result is confirmed by the Council. So although it is the President who decides which job goes to whom, he has to take account of what the other players want. Until now, there was only one other player (i.e. the Council) as the EP would rubberstamp the result anyway. As of yesterday, it has become more complicated. I have to add that Barroso’s distribution of the jobs was perceived as much more independent from the Council than any of his predecessors’. He gave many of the important jobs to relatively small countries and vice versa (notably France, which only got the transport portfolio). Previous presidents would not have dared to snub the big countries in such a way. Until now, the common explanation for this stand of Barroso was that he could do it thanks to the EU’s enlargement with 10 new countries, which diminishes the relative weight of big countries like France. But now, some would argue Barroso’s independence has backfired, as it may have convinced larger countries not to put their full political weight behind Barroso’s proposed line-up this week. I am not sure this is true, as I understand there has been quite a lot of lobbying in the EP by the member states. But it could play a role now Barroso is making his reshuffle…

By: eulogist

eulogist — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:53:32 +0000

@michael: But these pronouncements struck people as disingenuous, given that, when he was Italy’s European affairs minister he fought hard to remove protection against discrimination on grounds of gender or sexual orientation from the draft EU constitution. My view on this is that he was sincere when he made his statements in Parliament, but simply has a totally different, pre-modern view of what "freedom" or "respect for the individual" entails. I don't believe it is really possible, or even desirable, to distinguish between personal moral convictions and the public policy you make. Both Buttiglione and his adversaries illustrate that impossibility.

By: eulogist

eulogist — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:37:03 +0000

@schwa: But wouldn’t you agree the man has a track-record proving he is not able to distinguish between public policy and private faith? Re his policies as Italian minister, also w.r.t. the anti-discrimination clause in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (from which he tried to remove sexual orientation). My problem (and most MEPs’ problem) with him is not his social-conservatism as such, but the combination of his social-conservatism and this job as Commissioner for civil rights. In fact, I would say it is quite right for someone in government to make no distinction between his own convictions and his public policies. That is why we have elections in the first place. But then I’d say it is also rather normal for a parliamentary majority to reject a government (or whatever you want to call the Commission) on the basis of those convictions. That’s how democracy works after all. All of this apart from whether you consider this particular issue important enough to reject Mr Buttiglione. I do (as you may have guessed), as I believe the EU should be about improving ordinary people’s lives. And taking a stand against discriminatory attitudes, laws and regulations is most definitely part of that.

By: Michael Otsuka

Michael Otsuka — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:02:35 +0000

one of the fairly rare social conservatives who can tell the difference between his religious beliefs and his political duties Well yes he did try to draw this distinction during his confirmation hearing. He said things like: “I may think that homosexuality is a sin, and this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime…. The state has no right to stick its nose into these things and nobody can be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation… ” But these pronouncements struck people as disingenuous, given that, when he was Italy’s European affairs minister he fought hard to remove protection against discrimination on grounds of gender or sexual orientation from the draft EU constitution.

By: schwa

schwa — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:31:23 +0000

I feel professionally obliged to take umbrage at your description of game theory jargon as “political science jargon”. Formal methods haven’t conquered the world yet. The Buttiglione saga’s been uncomfortable for me, because I am broadly pro-expansion of the EP’s powers, but distinctly anti-blurring the line between public policy and private faith. I’m not too cut up about it because Buttiglione had other black marks against him, not least his association with Prime Minister Propagandabucks, but I think it’s a damn shame that the Parliament decided to flex its muscles by having for breakfast one of the fairly rare social conservatives who can tell the difference between his religious beliefs and his political duties. I’d be surprised if the EP is ever formally given the power to reject individual commissioners. Unless the next Buttiglione is qualitatively worse, this stunt is going to be harder to pull off next time (this was, after all, a stoush over something fairly trivial*) and harder still the time after that. It’s in the member states’ long-term interests, and probably the President’s too, to leave the system as it stands. I think your observation about the expansion of bargaining power this affords the President, though, is bang on. And that’s a very good thing. The Commissioner system is ridiculous, and every step, however small, towards making it less so is to be applauded. *. I’m gay, and bloody well claim the right to make this observation without any accusations of covert homophobia from the peanut gallery, thankyouverymuch.

By: Michael Otsuka

Michael Otsuka — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:57:07 +0000

Up to now, the Commission President has had limited choice over who gets what portfolio How is it, up to this point, that portfolios were determined? Did the leaders of the larger member states negotiate among themselves who got which choice portfolio and then present their agreed choices to the President of the Commission as a fait accompli? Or was there more of a role for the Commission President?

By: P O'Neill

P O'Neill — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:02:50 +0000

The wildcard is the extent to which Buttiglione becomes a cause celebre amongst the Catholic parties in Europe. One can’t generalise from Ireland of course, but I will anyway—I think Sinn Fein have alienated some supporters by being in the bloc that was threating to reject the Commission, so one wonders if people in other countries will also take a look at exactly what positions their MEPs have lined up with in Strasbourg that don’t match well with their supposed alignment at home. But if national voters want MEPs who more match their national preferences, how does this affect a European Parliament?