Europe needs a bold reformer Juncker is not the right choice to head the commission.

May 29, 2014 6:42 pm

Europe needs a bold reformer

Juncker is not the right choice to head the commission

EDITORIAL / FINANCIAL TIMES / http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d18eb9e4-e739-11e3-aa93-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz33B1nYzfV

The results of last weekend’s elections to the European Parliament show the deep discontent that millions of voters feel towards the EU. The poll was far from a comprehensive rejection of the bloc and its political values. But the big gains for eurosceptic parties of left and right – especially in France, Britain and Greece – exposed the frustration many feel at the growing power of a remote EU elite.

Ideally, Europe’s leaders – both in national government and in Brussels – would lose no opportunity to respond to the voters’ message. Some, like Britain’s David Cameron, have said it can no longer be “business as usual” for the EU. Yet within days of the elections, the bloc is heading for a prolonged institutional deadlock that threatens to make Europeans even more frustrated that their leaders are failing to deliver the jobs and prosperity that are urgently sought.

The focus of this looming impasse is the appointment of a new president for the European Commission, the top job in the Brussels hierarchy. While it has been somewhat politically marginalised under José Manuel Barroso, its current president, the commission remains the key European institution, operating as the civil service for the EU, regulator of the single market and now also an eagle-eyed monitor of national budgets and economic policies. But thanks to an ambiguity in the 2009 Lisbon treaty, the right to appoint the commission president is being contested by the parliament and the 28 heads of government in the Council of Ministers.

The parliament argues that Jean-Claude Juncker, former prime minister of Luxembourg, should get the job. The main pan-European parties in the elections all chose leading candidates (or Spitzenkandidaten) who were their standard-bearers and nominees to be president. Mr Juncker, selected by the centre-right, which won most parliamentary seats, assumes the post is his by right.

Europe’s 28 national leaders should unite to rule out Mr Juncker’s appointment for two reasons. First, his candidacy amounts to a crude institutional power grab by the parliament. The appointment of Spitzenkandidaten was a tactic by leading MEPs aimed solely at bolstering their claim to choose the commission’s boss. It has no basis in the EU treaties. Given the 43 per cent turnout in the election, the parliament has a very questionable mandate to decide who leads the commission. Its attempt to do so is an affront to democratic accountability.

Second, the appointment of Mr Juncker would symbolise the dismissal by Europe’s leaders of the anti-EU protest at the polls. The Luxembourgeois may be a canny dealmaker in the back rooms of Brussels but he is an arch-federalist of the old school and represents everything that the protest voters distrust about the EU.

National leaders need to appoint a fresh face, a figure who can boast experience in government and who has popular appeal. However, they need to do more than find a recognised name. They must also ensure that the new president can give a better focus and balance to EU governance.

The new president needs to overhaul the structure and scope of the commission. There are 28 commissioners, one from each member state and each with their own policy competence. This is too many. The EU needs a smaller commission with half a dozen policy clusters based on issues such as the single market, trade and energy. There must be tighter limits on the amount of legislation the body can produce.

Europe’s leaders also need to begin to explore how the powers of the parliament can be significantly scaled back so as to give a much bigger role to legislatures in member states. National parliaments enjoy the democratic legitimacy that the European Parliament lacks. They need to have a far bigger say in Brussels, especially at the commission, which has the right to propose EU legislation.

A programme to reform the EU along these lines is now essential. Europe is at a turning point. It may have seen off the eurozone crisis and economic growth may be returning – if fitfully. But last week’s elections reflect the deepening popular resentment across the continent at political interference by Brussels in national affairs.

If Europe’s leaders are to confront this populist challenge, they need to ensure that the institutions in Brussels are more efficient, more nimble and show a confident new face to the EU’s 500m citizens. There is no time for endless institutional debates. And this is no time for yesterday’s men.