Language switcher

English EN Italiano IT
Italiano

Author: claudia

Which majority to appoint the President of the European Council?

Posted on by claudia

José Luis Pacheco 

It may not be very important, but it is telling about the lack of knowledge of European affairs by the media sphere (and consequently public opinion). 

 Many papers, including some commonly considered as a reference have noticed that the election of the President of the European Council is made by this body deciding by qualified majority. The same applies to the nomination of the candidate for President of the Commission and with the election of the High Representative Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.   So far so good. But then they add that this means the favorable vote of 55% of the member states, corresponding at least to 65% of the population of the Union. This amounts to 15 Member States (without taking into consideration the population factor). 

It is wrong!  

That is the qualified majority required when the Council or the European Council decide on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. But in this case there is no proposal from the Commission. It is member states themselves who propose names to the nominations. In such cases, when the decision is not taken on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, the qualified majority requires the favorable vote of 72% of the member states, representing at least 65% of the population of the Union. This means 20 member states (quite a difference as compared to 15). It results from art. 15(6) TUE and from article 235(1) TFEU, which calls for the application of art. 16(4) TUE and 238(2) TFEU to the decision-making procedure in the European Council. 

It is bad enough when such mistakes can be read in prestigious papers. But it is much worse when the error can be found on the site of the European Commission itself, which serves as guide for most of the press and for citizens.

The Political Agenda (Yet to Be Written) of President Von der Leyen Towards 2030

Posted on by claudia

Alfredo De Feo, Scientific Director of the european college of Parma foundation

It is probably the first time since 1979 that the European press and media have dedicated so much space to Europe. After the initial controversies following the approval of the European Council’s proposed candidate, Ursula von der Leyen, by the new European Parliament with over 55% of the vote, a delicate phase has begun. This phase must lead to the definitive approval of the Commission that will guide the European process towards 2030. 

August, in particular, will be intense and challenging for the Commission President. President von der Leyen will need to balance the program she presented to the European Parliament, the competencies of the Commissioners, the parliamentary majority, the balance within the Council, and, importantly, gender parity. Only the right mix of these elements can ensure a smooth final passage before the European Parliament, leading to the Commission’s official start. 

The President of the Council will have to contend with the ambitions and demands of the twenty-seven governments, which include 13 center-right, 10 center-left, 2 right-wing, and transitional governments in France and Belgium.  

 Before voting to approve the Commission, the European Parliament will conduct hearings for each commissioner candidate through its respective parliamentary committees. In the past, the Parliament has rejected several commissioner candidates. The first instance was in 2004 when the Parliament rejected Rocco Buttiglione’s candidacy, forcing the Italian government to nominate Franco Frattini instead. Although not stipulated by the Treaties, this procedure has been respected by governments whose candidates have failed the parliamentary exam to avoid the risk of the entire Commission being rejected. 

To avoid this risk, governments must show flexibility by proposing competent candidates for the portfolios that President von der Leyen will assign to them. This step should not be underestimated. 

The Commissioners, along with the President, will shape the Commission’s policies. Among them will be Commissioners aligned with parties that voted against President von der Leyen. The real working program of the Commission will emerge from the balance formed within the Commission itself. In reality, President von der Leyen’s political agenda to guide Europe towards 2030 is still to be written. 

The candidate president’s programmatic speech to the European Parliament had political significance, especially regarding her personal commitment, but it does not constitute a work program. Once in office, the Commission will need to prepare proposals, considering the balance within the Commission, the significant parliamentary minority, and the positions of nine governments, five of which belong to the Conservative ECR group (Italy, Finland, Czech Republic, Sweden, and Belgium) and four to the Patriotic group. These parties range from Euro-opportunists to Euro-critics, Eurosceptics, or anti-Europeans. 

Beyond the program presented to the European Parliament, the task of the likely Commission President until 2029 will be much more complex. The proposals emerging from the College of Commissioners will face a legislative procedure that can only be concluded with a compromise between the two branches of the legislative power. The Commission must foster the best compromise while considering the trends from the European vote and the positions of a third of the states, knowing that unanimity is not always necessary within the Council. 

The real challenge for President von der Leyen will be to set a European policy that is more sustainable for European citizens and businesses. Only this political agenda can reduce the dissatisfaction that has largely fueled nationalist parties.  

Published in Gazzetta di Parma on August 5, 2024 

Overcoming today’s challenges sets the stage for tomorrow’s successes

Posted on by claudia

The European College of Parma Foundation is proud to announce the official opening of registrations for the following Master’s Courses, carried out in cooperation with the University of Parma:

  • II Level Master in “Management of Local Authorities”
  • I Level Master in “Management of European Funding for the Public Administration”
  • II Level Master in “Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Humanitarian Contexts” (delivered entirely in French)

In details, the three Courses are respectively aimed at:

  • Providing with the Managerial skills and abilities, required to take on a Management role within Local Authorities;
  • Providing with the knowledge and skills, necessary to play the role of expert in “European Funding”, within the Public Administration;
  • Enabling the acquisition of skills, related to Humanitarian Response and planning of Psychosocial Interventions, in the light of the MHPSS (Mental Health and Psychosocial Support).

You will find all the main information (deadlines, Academic Programme, duration, fees, etc.) on the Websites of the European College of Parma Foundation and of the University of Parma.

Choose our Masters’ Programmes, and build up your professional future with us!

The Members of the EP at work

Posted on by claudia

Alfredo De Feo, Scientific Director of the European College of Parma Foundation

Now that the European citizens have elected the 720 Members of Parliament, how can the newly elected Members influence the decisions of the Parliament?  

First, they will discover that the so-called multilingualism, where everyone can speak their own language, is a chimera. Indeed, theoretically, speaking one’s own language is a right certainly guaranteed in plenary sessions but not sufficient to ensure good integration into the parliamentary work. The administration provides Members with interpreter and translation services; additionally, each Member can hire assistants to help them in communicating with their peers. However, if a Member cannot express themselves in one of the “vehicular” languages, or rather “in the vehicular language”, they risk being marginalized in the parliamentary work. 

The new Member will then discover that the organization of political work in the EP revolves around two pillars, two sides of the same coin: political groups and parliamentary committees.  

The parliamentary committees are divided by thematic areas, mirroring the committees of national parliaments. Members will be assigned to parliamentary committees based on their competencies and preferences. The composition of the committees will thus be proportional to the composition of the plenary assembly. Having specific expertise in a certain area will increase the possibility of influencing decisions. 

In the committees, besides the President and Vice Presidents, a central role is played by the spokespersons of the groups, one or two per group, who have the task of finding the most unified positions within the group and then defending the results achieved in the committee within their own political group. The groups’ spokespersons also decide the group responsible for each report or opinion and choose the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs. Those positions are key to leave a mark on parliamentary work. 

For this reason, specific expertise in the European issues addressed by the parliamentary committee is essential to be able to aspire to hold one of the aforementioned roles and influence the decision-making process. Indeed, expertise counts; the impact of each Member will be proportional to their competence and way of interacting with their peers. 

Work in the committees is certainly fundamental, as the EP’s position on the legislation to be adopted is prepared in the committees, but it is not sufficient, as the plenary votes are determined by the positions of the political groups. 

To be influential, the Member must know how to find their points of reference within the group. Obviously, each group has its own organization, which generally includes a role for national delegations and some thematic areas, which generally cover the competencies of several parliamentary committees. Again, Members who want to assert national specificities must find the support of the political group, which will then have to negotiate compromises with other groups to achieve the required majority in the plenary. 

In conclusion, we hope that the new MEPs will rapidly adapt to the EP working method to value their expertise and to integrate well into the parliamentary committees and their respective political groups to actively participate in the democratic construction of Europe. 

Contact us for more information