B2 The Daily of Geopolitical Europe. News. Files. Reflections. Reports

Blog AnalysisEU Institutions

The four keys to understanding the choice of the top European chef

(B2) The system for appointing the European top chef can appear complex, opaque and discretionary. But with a bit of good will, it is quite easy to understand, provided you leave aside some preconceived ideas.

The current 'top leader' - D. Tusk (European Council), A. Tajani (European Parliament), JCJuncker (European Commission), all from the EPP (a monopoly destined to burst). Here with former Ukrainian President P. Poroshenko (credit: Ukrainian Presidency, March 2019)

First key: Europe is an original system of dual coalition

To fully understand the situation, we must keep in mind a few fundamental principles.

1° It is not possible to apply a national system to the European system. The mistake often made is to dump our French-style appointment system, which is quite simple in itself, where the president, elected by universal suffrage, has indisputable legitimacy and composes his government as he wishes, with the support of a solid majority in the assembly. This is not the case at European level.

2° Europe is neither a State nor an international organization. It is a union of states and peoples. A kind of non-state confederal system. This specific mechanism is reflected in the appointment process which requires an agreement between the European Council (= Council of States) and the European Parliament (= parliamentary assembly).

3° There is no democratic legitimacy that takes precedence over the other. The national governments have all been consecrated by universal suffrage (resulting from national suffrage) and have significant legitimacy, just as valid as that of the elected members of the European Parliament (resulting from European universal suffrage). And vice versa.

4° Europe is therefore governed according to a dual coalition system — a coalition of political groups (in Parliament) + a coalition of countries (in the Council) — which collide, whether in Parliament or in the Council. Sometimes personal or geopolitical affinities are more important than political arithmetic. Which explains some unexpected choices.

5° We cannot have at the top only men (or only women), too many representatives of a single country or a single geographical area, etc. There is thus a subtle balance between small and large countries, southern countries and eastern countries, women and men, seniors and younger people (see 3rd key).

6° Traditionally, the European agreement is made between France and Germany. As long as Paris and Berlin do not agree - which is the case today - no agreement can be made. This does not mean that the Franco-German agreement takes precedence. But without it, nothing is possible. The exclusion of the United Kingdom (because of Brexit) makes this couple stronger than before.

7° Certain rules are unavoidable because they are fixed by the Treaty: a European commissioner can only be appointed by a Member State, all the commissioners and the first of them must then be approved by the European Parliament, finally the process of appointment must be respected.

Second key: the constitutional framework set by the Treaty allows two interpretations

What the text says

The mechanism provided for by the 'constitutional' Treaty reflects this double legitimacy: that of the States and that of the parliamentary election. Article 17.7 thus provides for an indirect appointment system:

"1. Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament, and after having carried out the appropriate consultations,
2. the European Council, acting by a qualified majority,
3. proposes to the European Parliament a candidate for the office of President of the Commission.
4. This candidate is elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members.
5. If this candidate does not receive a majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate, who shall be elected by the European Parliament according to the same procedure. »

NB: the numbering is ours to reflect all the stages and conditions.

Two different interpretations

The new element introduced into the treaty “the taking into account of elections” – which is a zest of political democracy, in a system which previously emerged from a process of geopolitical technique – has given rise to two different interpretations.

First version: that of elected representatives and the European Parliament. This is the system called Spitzenkandidat (or head of list). The candidate of the party that comes first in the European elections automatically becomes the President-designate of the European Commission.

  • a variant of this device is that it is not the candidate whose party came out on top, but rather the party that manages to form a majority that sees its candidate nominated.

Second version: that of the Heads of State and Government (European Council). We listen to the results... and we choose the suitable candidate, who must come from +/- the same majority.

Only one application in 2014

The device of Spitzenkandidat has only been used once: in 2014. It is therefore very early to establish a custom. The candidate of the European People's Party, Jean-Claude Juncker (Luxembourg), was then chosen by a majority of political groups. The European Council ratifies this appointment by qualified majority, two votes missing for JC-Juncker: that of David Cameron (United Kingdom), and Viktor Orban (Hungary).

Jean-Claude Juncker combined many criteria: known personality, experienced, former Prime Minister, from the majority party, but fairly consensual in the other parties. One can therefore wonder if it is the system of the Spitzenkandidat who has been dubbed (European Parliament version), or whether this system has met the will of the Heads of State and Government who would have chosen this candidate anyway (European Council version).

In 2019, it's 'more complicated'

On the one hand because the main political groups have chosen personalities who are objectively a notch below those chosen in 2014: a political group president (for the EPP), a European commissioner (for the social democrats) to be compared with an experienced Prime Minister and a President of the European Parliament (Mr Schulz). Choosing them would be for the European Council an abdication of certain criteria. On the other hand, certain parties (Liberal and Democratic in particular) and certain Heads of State and Government refuse this system of Spitzenkandidaten which gives precedence to the European People's Party.

Third key: 'objective' or unwritten selection criteria

The appointment of a President of the European Commission (like other Commissioners) cannot be the simple translation of a choice, democratic or autocratic. It obeys certain criteria, written and unwritten.

Written criteria

Certain criteria are expressly included in the Treaties:

  • « a personality (NB: who therefore has a certain political legitimacy);
  • offering full guarantees of independence;
  • general competence;
  • a European commitment. »

Without forgetting to have the nationality of an EU Member State.

Unwritten criteria

Some criteria are not expressed, and are not prohibitive, but have imposed themselves over time and are present in everyone's mind at the time of choice.

  • No legal cases (corruption, etc.) — proven or possible, directly or indirectly (family, entourage).
  • Good health.
  • Good image.
  • Flexibility of spirit — being able to impose oneself when necessary, to step aside if necessary.
  • Be available.

To this, we must add a new criterion (unwritten)...

An additional criterion: international presence

This criterion was not very present a few years ago. But it should be added today. The President of the Commission, like that of the European Council, will indeed have to negotiate step by step with strong personalities at the international level. American Donald Trump, Russian Vladimir Putin, Turkish Recep Tayip Erdogan, Chinese Li Keqiang, etc. are all loudmouths who only want the European Union 'good'. The Europeans appointed must not only be skilful conciliators of the deed European. They must be able to know and impose themselves on the international scene.

Fourth key: a subtle geopolitical balance

The piling up of criteria could easily lead to identifying two or three personalities. But the situation is complicated because the President of the Commission is only the first piece of a jigsaw which includes several. The whole must respect a subtle balance.

A complex puzzle

There are at least two compulsory documents: the President of the European Council, the High Representative. But we can add a few other pieces: the President(s) of the European Parliament (if the mandate is split), or the President of the European Central Bank, or even a Vice-President of the Commission with a large portfolio. economic. It is therefore ultimately a game of half a dozen names that will allow compensation to be awarded to the 'losers' of the first level.

political balance

The distribution of positions between the political families of the 'government majority' - Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Liberal Democrats, and possibly the Greens - must reflect, more or less, their weight in public opinion. The results of the 2019 elections show that the European People's Party (EPP), which held almost all the reins of the top leader in 2014 (except that of High Representative entrusted to the Social Democratic family), will have to shed at least one post.

The geographical/geopolitical balance

All geographic or geopolitical areas must be represented: Eastern and Western Europe; Germanic Europe and Latin Europe; small and large countries.

The male-female balance

At least one of the top chefs (according to the rule held in 2014), or even two (according to the new rule established at the European Council on May 28, read: Looking for four names to lead Europe tomorrow. Donald Tusk's tenure), must be female.

The balance of ages

To this can be added a fourth balancing factor, that of age. This balancing factor has never been put in the balance. But it could be this time. This factor is not only a question of experience, but also of image. Having only people approaching around 65-70 years old would be interesting for wisdom, but a bad signal sent to Europeans. Having only 40-year-olds would also be risky, as personal ambition could annihilate all the ardor of 'youth'.

The crash test game

You now have all the elements and pieces of the puzzle. Screen each candidate or set of candidates, putative or potential, against these written or unwritten conditions and balancing factors. You will see that some do not withstand this crash test. However, do not jump to conclusions. Don't forget one last thing: European politics is constantly changing. And the effect of surprise (or bewilderment) cannot be ruled out. Nothing prohibits the 'leaders' and 'negotiators' of the various parties, from adding a new criterion or a new element of balance in order to find... a compromise.

It's your turn !

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

NB: this article is taken from a 'course' that I gave in Kinshasa a few days ago in front of the auditors of CHESD, the college of advanced studies in strategy and defense of DR Congo, where I was invited to come and explain how it works.

Nicolas Gros Verheyde

Chief editor of the B2 site. Graduated in European law from the University of Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne and listener to the 65th session of the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. Journalist since 1989, founded B2 - Bruxelles2 in 2008. EU/NATO correspondent in Brussels for Sud-Ouest (previously West-France and France-Soir).

3 thoughts on “The four keys to understanding the choice of the top European chef"

  • Hughes Belin

    Clear, complete, educational, in a word (once again): brilliant! Before reading the footnote, I would have said that the content of this article should be taught in schools. So it's done, but unfortunately not in Europe 😉 We could almost make an app out of it: we introduce a name and we see if the candidate has his chances. Let's count on our leaders in the European Council to once again create their own algorithm… A top European leader will always have more legitimacy than a senior official of the European Commission appointed after an opaque procedure on the sly.

  • Remarkable synthesis and more educational (I am however an old enthusiast of European politics).

  • Excellent explanation indeed. A remark on point 3: the democratic legitimacy of the Council is not on the same level as that of the EP elected for a single express task: collectively representing all European citizens. Council members are primarily elected to manage national affairs “ex officio”. Their first loyalty (and most of their activity) is exercised towards their national voters and the duration of their mandate is national (they therefore change often…).

Comments closed.

s2Member®