Language switcher

English EN Italiano IT
Italiano

Tag: Interinstitutional relations

The future European Commission

Posted on by claudia

Alfredo De Feo

On 20 November 2024, the political groups in the European Parliament concluded a political agreement which, with reasonable certainty, will allow the new European Commission to take office, as last term,  on 1 December. This vote puts an end to many months in which the European institutions’ attitudes has looked more inward than geopolitical. The election of Trump to the Presidency of the United States has given an acceleration to processes that in the past have been more complex.

For many observers, the behaviour of the leaders of the parliamentary groups appeared to be immature, dictated by concerns that are difficult to understand in the face of global urgencies and challenges, challenges that can only be faced with great unity.

The contrasts between the political groups, beyond identity and national positions, concealed a basic malaise: accepting the shift of the majority from the Europeanism we have known in decades to positions of a Europeanism, marked by a more invasive presence of the States, This new tendency is probably more in tune with the sentiments of a part of public opinion,  which translated into the result in the European elections.

Ursula von der Leyen, immediately grasped this change, proposing to involve the conservative group, or at least part of the group, in the top positions of the Commission, being aware that in the next five years it will not always be able to count on the majority of the People’s Party, Socialists, Liberals and probably Greens but that, probably, she will also need the support of the more moderate right European conservatives. In addition, the appointment of a Vice-President of the Commission issue of the Conservatives should guarantee a more stable majority in the Council, where Italy’s weight is not indifferent. In fact, in the bicameral European architecture, the Commission, for any legislative act, will have to find the support not only of the parliamentary majority but also that of the Member States. The attitude of the President of the Commission denotes lucidity and political realism.

The European Parliament has largely demonstrated in recent years its central role in the institutional balance, it will be able to continue to be central provided that it maintains the ability to compromise even in the face of a Council, whose majority of States probably have a more national vision of Europe.

On the other hand, if we look at the last twenty years, the European decision-making process has become progressively more intergovernmental, reducing the influence of the Commission. The Commission that will have to accompany Europe towards 2030 will certainly be influenced by governments, many of the Commissioners are direct expressions of national governments and it is likely that these will condition the Commission’s choices more than in the past.

However, recent years have shown that the process of European integration can also continue through the intergovernmental method, with decisions taken unanimously, as for instance the Recovery and Resilience Plan financed with the guarantee of the national budgets. Although this type of funding is unlikely to be replicated in the short term, Member States may follow the same method to progress in the European integration. The concrete proof appeared at the informal European Council on 8 November 2024, where the Heads of State and Government invited the Commission to present a horizontal strategy on the deepening of the single market, towards a union of savings and investment and to make urgent progress on the capital markets union.

 

In addition, States ask to the High Representative and the Commission to present proposals to increase the efficiency of the European defence capability, in particular by appropriately strengthening the defence technological and industrial base.

To conclude, the new Commission will have to strengthen European credibility with proposals that can garner the consensus of all the States if possible, without forgetting that the Treaties provide that some projects can be shared only by a group of States, through the enhanced cooperation as for the Euro, or the Schengen Treaty, , obviously leaving the doors open to others to participate. 

 

Pubblicato sulla Gazzetta di Parma 23/11/2024

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 

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. 

European elections and the appointment of the President of the Commission

Posted on by collegio

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

One of the central issues of the upcoming European elections is the appointment of the next President of the Commission. The candidate proposed by the European Council, taking into account the results of the elections, should be appointed by the European Parliament.

Since 2014, to reinforce the link between candidates and elections, the European parties have been appointing their candidates for the Presidency of the Commission (lead candidates). The candidates have then presented their vision of Europe and their responses to transnational challenges.

These debates are certainly interesting, as they force the candidates to present their ideas and their recipes, but they still have a great limitation: they do not attract the attention of public opinion in the various countries. Firstly, there is a language barrier, which is difficult to overcome, and secondly, the leaders of national parties have little motivation, especially when they are candidates, to put forward the candidate of the European party to which they are affiliated.

The European Parliament had put forward a proposal, supported by the most federalist circles, to create a single transnational constituency where each European party would present a single list with its own single candidate. In this way, the leading candidate of the party with the most votes would have a popular investiture, a kind of European premiership.

In reality, there is another limitation, the absence of a single electoral system, each country organizes its elections internally as it sees fit. In addition, proportional voting certainly makes the European Parliament representative of national public opinion, and this is a good thing, but not necessarily suitable for electing the best candidate for President of the Commission, whose main quality should be his/her capacity of mediator between the ‘Senate’ (national governments) and the lower house (the European Parliament).

The future President of the Commission must, however, have the ability to coalesce a parliamentary majority, probably making concessions to the right and the left, only in this way he/she will be able to have a majority in the European Parliament, a majority that could lose during the term of office, in case the motion of censure is activated, as it happened, in 1999 with the Santer Commission.

The best example of the Commission President’s ability to compromise came in 2019. Ursula von der Leyen was not among the Leader candidates expressed by the European parties, but none of them had the necessary parliamentary majority to be elected. The European Council nominated Ms von der Leyen, who was confirmed by only nine votes. After that, she negotiated her government programme with the parliamentary groups after the elections, obtaining a solid parliamentary majority.

To conclude, as it is often the case in Europe, the ideal solution is not achievable and remains a goal, but there is (almost) always a sub-optimal solution that advances the democratic process and European integration.

In previous years, the President of the Commission was formally appointed by the European Council. In practice, the appointment took place in a private room of the Council, or more often in a small room in some hotel between two or maximum three Heads of State, you can guess the names! The Treaty of Lisbon put an end to this practice and the European Parliament, with the majority that will emerge from the ballot box, has a decisive role. The citizens’ vote will have an important influence on the future of Europe.

Contact us for more information