Is Cathy Ashton's future dotted?

(BRUXELLES2) Far from the noisy disappointments and annoyances of the beginning, we now perceive a haunting criticism on the background of the activity and on the very future of Lady Ashton on the European scene which now regularly comes back from three concordant sources: the ministers of Foreign Affairs, European parliamentarians... and the European Commission. Not to mention commentators and observers of all stripes. This criticism has grown over time, has become more and more serious, supported by several tangible facts (and no longer mere impressions). If a change of course is not instituted quickly, it could gradually threaten the institution.

However, the High Representative remains protected today both by the process of her appointment resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon - appointment by the Member States in agreement with the President of the Commission approved by the European Parliament - and the conditions of her appointment - an equation tricky to bring together which imposed itself over the course of the negotiations: British, socialist, woman -. But this protection is slowly weakening. And the spirits begin to phosphorus. How to replace Cathy Ashton? By who ? And when to do it? Ideas are not lacking...

A persistent and convergent critique

For many people the cause is heard; today's High Representative is not only "weak" or "non-existent" on the international scene (NB: take the dictionary of synonyms if you want to qualify the remarks). But she is not up to the post carved out by the Lisbon Treaty. Its legitimacy is disputed by the foreign ministers. The words of the Belgian Minister Steven Vanackere in the evening is not insignificant. He expresses aloud what several ministers express softly (and again “he is nice”). Several heads of state and government (like Sarkozy or Cameron) now do not hesitate to snub it.

The Libya test is there to prove it. If the diplomatic service, even in the process of being set up, has proved a certain relevance, the same is not true of the High Representative. The key word seems to be "lack of political impetus", "lack of presence"... On several occasions, the High Representative has even been out of time with current events and her role. Calling for restraint and dialogue when it came to the test of armed force, refusing any solution by force but without proposing a gradual solution or a political solution, leaving for New York when it was necessary to be in Brussels.

Within the college of the European Commission, the criticism for being more discreet is no less real and the damage just as significant. The role of the British commissioner is today "devalued". The United Kingdom thus no longer has a heavy weight within the Community system, nor a cabinet that can influence the negotiations, at a time when issues as crucial as the budget, enlargement future in the Balkans,... It's the ransom of having a visible position. You gain influence on the post itself, you lose influence on the Commission.

How is the replacement done?
of a High Representative versus Lisbon?

Normally the departure of a commissioner can be done of his own volition or by vote of what could be called a motion of no confidence. For the High Representative, we can add two other hypotheses which, although theoretical, nevertheless exist legally.

1. The will of the High Representative (resignation).

This would be, in this case, a gentle way to make a change. And to avoid any drama, it would be necessary to find a sufficiently becoming reception post at the High Representative to be able to justify an early departure. A kind of "exfiltration". But betting on a resignation of the High Representative, on her own, is however daring. Cathy Ashton has the "thick leather", they say in her entourage; a real "politics". Raised on the bottle of British politics, which does not spare blows, she is undoubtedly better in the battles of the corridor or the parliamentary spans - she does not hesitate thus in the debates to respond tit to tat or to snub a interlocutor, to play with humor or irony which she handles marvelously - than in the realm of foreign policy proper.

2. The vote of a motion of no confidence by the European Parliament.

Legally, Parliament has no right to dismiss a commissioner. But it had been agreed when the Barroso II Commission was set up that if Parliament demanded the departure of a commissioner, the President of the Commission would respect this choice. A commitment to resign (an undated letter) had been made for each commissioner if the president so requests. The device for Me Ashton is a bit complicated by his dual status. But the vote of a resolution of the European Parliament is always possible. Nothing forbids it. And it would be difficult for the person concerned to resist for long. This time has not come. Cathy Ashton is, for the moment, protected by her (Socialist) group, even if within it, fewer and fewer MPs are convinced of the relevance of this choice. This vote of no confidence should also be followed by the President of the European Commission and by the European Council. In practice, this agreement will be achieved by an agreement between the main political groups and the main states.

3. The decision of the European Council.

This is the counterpart of the previous decision. This question has been little discussed. But according to the parallelism of forms, it cannot be excluded. The departure is acquired by the "qualified majority" of the members. It also implies a change in the European Commission.

4. Action for failure to act.

It is a legal means which has not yet been publicly mentioned because it is entirely new for the HR (I will come back to this). It would still be necessary to suppose that one of the institutions (the European Parliament for example) has the will to do so and that the European Court of Justice recognizes itself as having jurisdiction in an area (external relations) where it has only limited jurisdiction. It would certainly be a case of ultimate crisis. If it is therefore for the moment above all a good case study or case law for many law students, it also represents in practice a good means of pressure and a formidable political weapon.

When?

Unless the European Parliament and the Member States decide to accelerate the movement, a window of "shooting" presents itself by next year.

In January 2012, the European Parliament will change its president, according to the agreement made between the EPP and the PES, with the relay which should be ensured between the Polish Buzek (from the EPP) and the German Schulz (from the PES).

The mandate of the Belgian Herman Van Rompuy (EPP / Belgium) at the head of the European Council ends in May 2012. And if his renewal should not pose a problem, it is one of the equations of a possible solution. In other words, there is a political rebalancing in favor of the socialist group which is taking place at European level, while overall the governments of the Member States remain centered on the right. The group could thus be inclined to be more flexible in order to preserve its weight in Parliament.

At the same time (March 2012), the presidential elections are taking place in Finland. Commissioner Olli Rehn, quite popular at home, plans to run. The decision must be taken within a few weeks (if no more valid candidate like former finance minister Sauli Ninistö comes forward). This departure from the Commission would then require finding a replacement as Commissioner for the Economy. Replacement could not be more delicate, in the midst of the Euro crisis, and which could require a mini-reshuffle within the European Commission.

These co-events may force the 27 to address the issue, at least informally, by the December summit this year.

Who?

Not to mention the high hypothesis - where the whole package of appointments to important posts is reopened, which seems unlikely in its current state - two so-called "reasonable" options exist to replace the High Representative.

- Either we carry out a replacement item for item. A Briton comes to replace a Briton. Contrary to appearances, it is not very difficult. The United Kingdom being a large country with good diplomats, there should be no shortage of people who meet the various criteria. We must also rely on the springs of internal politics. The liberal-conservative coalition in power which has suffered from the campaign on the modification of the electoral law will, for a time, need a reshuffling of the government which would then be considered. The post of commissioner in Brussels could thus be a lot of compensation for those leaving (a habit in Britain and in several other countries).

- or there is a permutation of functions within the European Commission. If Olli Rehn (Finnish Commissioner for the Economy) is elected to the presidency in Finland (in March 2012), the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alexander Stubb, holds the pole position to replace him. However, this one is not really a specialist in monetary affairs. It may therefore be necessary to rotate some positions within the Commission. It would not be unthinkable, theoretically, for Lady Ashton to remain at the Commission but in another post, for example by returning to the Trade post (even if this would be a difficult snub for the British to accept).