In the dispute over Rocco Buttiglionie the head of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso has blinked, deferring a vote which would have seen his entire panel of 25 commissioners rejected by the European Parliament. Barring extraordinary dexterity, it looks as if he will have to either secure Buttiglionie’s withdrawal or shunt him to a less controversial job.
This is, I think, a win for Henry’s side of the dispute with Dan Drezner. The EU Parliamentary majority has acted exactly as you would expect an ordinary parliamentary majority to act, without any apparent deference to the national governments of the countries whose citizens they represent. The attitudes of the British MEPs were particularly interesting. Not only did Labour MPs disregard any pressure from Blair (famously cosy with Berlusconi, and by implication with his nominee, Buttiglioni) but some Tories suggested they might vote No out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
The other point of interest is that the ‘nuclear option’ aspect of the issue turned out to be a paper tiger as usual. Much was made of the fact that the Parliament could not reject individual nominations, but only the entire proposal. This is like the restriction, found in many bicameral systems, where the Upper House cannot amend some bills, but can only accept or reject them. In practice, though, there’s always the option of rejecting the bill then stating “but we would pass an amended bill of the following form”. The limitation to accept or reject is effective only if acceptance or rejection is final. Conversely, suppose the Parliament had the power of voting on the candidates individually, accepting some and rejecting others. The head of the Commission could get around this by nominating the controversial candidates first, and making it clear that acceptance was all or nothing. In the end, all systems of this kind produce a bargained outcome.
{ 9 comments }
kevin donoghue 10.27.04 at 1:56 pm
Obviously I haven’t been paying sufficiently close attention – what was Henry disputing with Dan Drezner?
Angelo 10.27.04 at 2:33 pm
Correct spelling is Buttiglione.
kevin donoghue 10.27.04 at 2:34 pm
Apologies for laziness, I have now read the link.
Phil 10.27.04 at 2:42 pm
[Barroso] will have to either secure Buttiglioni’s withdrawal or shunt him to a less controversial job
Commissioner for Toilet Roll Acquisitions, perhaps?
kevin donoghue 10.27.04 at 3:08 pm
Recently Drezner requested advice from his readers on how he should cast his vote in the presidential election. I urged him to stick with Bush on the grounds that, by fostering contempt for America, Bush is bringing about a necessary realignment in international relations. (Sadly, Drezner does not seem to see the force of this argument.) One consequence I foresee from a second Bush term is a strengthening of the sense of a European identity. Whether I will really like the political consequences of this when they actually emerge is another question.
Michael Mouse 10.27.04 at 4:10 pm
How come the mainstream media never point out that the famously homophobic Rocco Buttiglione’s name is very obviously that of a gay porn star?
Uncle Kvetch 10.27.04 at 7:04 pm
How come the mainstream media never point out that the famously homophobic Rocco Buttiglione’s name is very obviously that of a gay porn star?
For the same reason they never said the same thing about Dick Armey.
jet 10.28.04 at 5:52 pm
Kevin,
I look forward to this “realignment”. It is about time things were made clearer.
You make it sound as if much of the world hasn’t already aligned itself against the US. France performing military excercises with China off the shores of Taiwan. Russia not only supplieing Iraq with weapons after the sanctions, but sending special forces to help them handle it. Besides actually shooting at US soldiers, how much farther can they align against us?
kevin donoghue 10.28.04 at 8:02 pm
Jet,
I have been wondering where you get your information from on various topics – the Kurdish uprising in Turkey, the fatalities caused by mustard gas in WW1, the popularity of Muqtada al-Sadr, Japan’s level of development (industrial and educational) pre-1945. Judging by your comments in various threads your information on these subjects differs radically from that available on my planet. But if you are a reader of the Washington Times there is really nothing to wonder at.
In time no doubt we will understand why, if the Russians were busily exporting munitions from Iraq to Syria prior to March 2003, they left such a quantity behind for American reporters to film in April and for Iraqis to loot soon afterwards. Perhaps it was one of those barter deals they were so fond of in the Soviet era? Explosives-for-explosives is a funny kind of swap, but I’m sure the Belmont Club will come up with a plausible way to weave it into a strategy. If not, then Fafblog or The Onion may supply the answer.
BTW, on my planet the ROW is not ganging up on America nor do I expect to see that happen. I do expect Europe to take a more independent line than was the norm from Truman to Clinton; on balance I think this will be a good thing, but not all good by any means. Bush is likely to accelerate the process; from an EU perspective he is like one of those diseases that it is better to suffer when one is young. So once again I urge you to vote for that miserable excrescence.
Comments on this entry are closed.