British Commissioner Lord Hill resigns. An elegant gesture
(BRUSSELS2) Lord Jonathan Hill, the British member of the European Commission, has just announced his resignation. A backlash from the negative referendum, as the European commissioner in charge of the financial markets explains himself (*).
« Like many people, here and in the UK, I am obviously very disappointed with the outcome of the referendum. I wish it had ended differently and I had hoped Britain would play a part in advocating for a flexible, competitive, free-trade, outward-looking Europe. But the Brits made a different decision and that's how democracy works »
A decision taken a few weeks ago
“We are entering a new phase. I don't think it's fair to carry on as British Commissioner as if nothing had happened. I spoke with the President of the Commission a few weeks ago, so I told him that I was going to resign. At the same time, there must be an orderly transition. So I have (proposed) to continue working with him in the coming weeks. (...)
A converted eurosceptic
And the commissioner to admit that he was not (at the start) an eenthusiastic about Europe but that he has become one. “I came to Brussels as someone who had campaigned against Britain's adoption of the euro and was skeptical about Europe. I'm going to let certain that, despite his frustrations, our participation was good for our place in the world and good for our economy. »
A new relationship with Europe to be defined
What's done can't be undone and we must now move on to making our new relationship with Europe work as well as possible.
NB: it is the commissioner in charge of the Euro, the Lithuanian Valdis Dombrovskis, who will take over the financial services file from Jonathan Hill, until a new commissioner is appointed by the British government. . But he will have to go back to the European Parliament to be heard. It is not certain that the appointment is automatic. Because among the eligibility criteria for a future commissioner is not only the " general competence " but also " European commitment ».
Comment: an elegant and responsible gesture
This is the first European consequence of Brexit, but perhaps not the last. In any case, we can salute the elegant gesture of Lord Hill. Until now, at the European level, whatever the political events, few European leaders have been able and willing to assume the consequences of their political decisions or their actions.
A consequence to be drawn from the latest reforms undertaken
If the European political leaders (President of the European Council and President of the European Commission) follow through on the reform introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, and the 2014 elections with the lead candidates, and their deep commitment to campaign against Brexit, that is the consequence they should draw. It is difficult to claim, on the one hand, to have popular and democratic legitimacy (which is the reality via the elected bodies - European Parliament and Council of the EU) and, on the other hand, not to draw the in the event of a serious political setback.
The Brexit campaign is not just a British setback
This is a serious political setback for Europe, and not just for the UK. You can't blame the British alone. Admittedly, it was David Cameron, all alone, who triggered this referendum, without any obligation. But the result is clear. With such a strong turnout at the polls, it is also a defeat for Europe, which has not been able to demonstrate its interest in an important people and State. Any other behavior could only lead to further disenchantment and loss of popularity of the European spirit.
A European leader must be accountable to his constituents
This "irresponsibility" on the political level of European leaders cannot last any longer. As at the national level, when a leader engages and defends a specific policy, which he considers vital and intrinsically linked to his political profile, and is defeated, directly or indirectly, by popular vote, he should derive one consequence: to make his mandate available again (to the Council and to the European Parliament which consecrated him) even if it means being reconfirmed afterwards if the latter considers that this "political resignation" has no reason to be. If we want to rebuild Europe, we must also rebuild its political functioning.
(*) Original text in English here, or below - translation by B2
Like many people here and in the UK, I am obviously very disappointed about the result of the referendum. I wanted it to end differently and had hoped that Britain would want to play a role in arguing for an outward-looking, flexible, competitive, free trade Europe. But the British people took a different decision, and that is the way that democracy works.
As we move to a new phase, I don't believe it is right that I should carry on as the British Commissioner as though nothing had happened. In line with what I discussed with the President of the Commission some weeks ago, I have therefore told him that I shall stand down. At the same time, there needs to be an orderly handover, so I have said that I will work with him to make sure that happens in the weeks ahead.
I am very grateful to Jean-Claude Juncker for giving me the chance to work on financial services and for the opportunity to help support jobs and growth in Europe. I was also glad to have worked with other Commissioners in trying to take forward our program of reform, and to have had the chance to work with excellent officials at DG FISMA and in my own team.
I came to Brussels as someone who had campaigned against Britain joining the euro and who was skeptical about Europe. I will leave it
certain that, despite its frustrations, our membership was good for our place in the world and good for our economy. But what is done cannot be undone and now we have to get on with making our new relationship with Europe work as well as possible.
It is interesting to learn (or have confirmation of) Mr Hill's euroscepticism. JC Junker must have been aware of this when the UK "suggested" to appoint him commissioner - but does not seem to have objected. Unfortunate precedent.
Mr. Hill resigns because he considers himself a “British commissioner” – which is contrary to the spirit of the Treaty which only recognizes “European commissioners”. His resignation would only be justified if he found himself under the orders of a Government – or representing a State – with which he disagreed. Such might be the case for the UK's Permanent Representative in Brussels – but not for Mr. Hill who has taken the oath of independence. JGGiraud
Here, a gentleman. It's rare…
And indeed, the whole Juncker Commission should have resigned en bloc and maybe even Donald Tusk too, for their disastrous management of this campaign.