front page" "
The episode involving the Commission-designate and the European Parliament in recent days, apart from all the controversies it has caused and the shadow it has cast over the ceremony of the signing of the Constitution, has much to teach the direct protagonists, the European politicians and the citizens who feel themselves participants in the laborious but fascinating process of European integration. First, it needs to be said that by deferring the vote on the Executive in Strasbourg on Wednesday, an institutional impasse has been created, contravening among other things the provisions of the Treaties in force that stipulate that the Commission be confirmed no later than 1st November. The rules of the Union in this case were “bent” and sacrificed to a contingent factor (though it’s not the first time that has happened: it’s enough to think of the Stability Pact), but in this case they were worth bending: the rejection of Barroso and his Commission by the European Parliament would have created a dangerous institutional crisis two days before the signing of the Constitution a crisis, moreover, that would have been incomprehensible to citizens of the EU The attitude of the President-designate of the European Commission was, in this sense, unexceptionable on the institutional level and in any case wise. He temporarily withdrew his team to avoid a defeat; he did not force the hand of MEPs, and made a point of declaring the centrality of Parliament (even if he could have done so earlier). Barroso may paradoxically emerge from this situation reinforced vis-à-vis the national governments: he could legitimately ask them to nominate new Commissioners, or alternatively feel himself free to “reshuffle” his team, assigning the portfolios as he sees fit and not depending on the pressure put on him by the various premiers. On the other hand, a series of by no means negligible questions are now posed: how much time will Barroso have for this “reshuffle”? When will it be possible to hold new auditions for possible new candidates? When will Parliament be able to vote on the matter? Will the six Commissioners whose credentials have been challenged (some for manifest incompetence, others for possible conflicts of interest, others again as in the case of Buttiglione because found “guilty” of having expressed their own ethical and moral principles with a staunchness considered out of place at the European level) remain in the team of the Portuguese leader? Yet, one positive, and far from secondary, element has come out of this imbroglio. It concerns the complex process leading towards united Europe: namely, the unexpected capacity for political dialogue that emerged between the forces present in the Parliament and the central role that the EP played in the affair. Of course, different attitudes emerge among the MEPs: there are markedly federalist and equally pronounced eurosceptic positions; alongside parliamentarians more “tolerant” at the ethical level sit others firmly convinced they must safeguard at any cost? freedom of conscience; utterly different mentalities and habits co-exist among the 732 exponents from 25 nations, who speak 20 languages and who in many cases are in Strasbourg and Brussels to place themselves at the service of the “European common good”, but in others to represent more modest, and even narrow, national interests. Yet, on this occasion, a more convinced “parliamentary democracy” gained the upper hand. It upholds the equal dignity of the EU institutions (Parliament, Council, Commission) and places citizens, rather than chanceries, at the centre of the “common home”. “If government respect Parliament it was said during the debate on Wednesday even the autonomy of the Commission over governments will benefit”. And its President will be stronger and more authoritative. Perhaps European construction will start anew from here.
