Brussels late summer, this time without psychodrama

The vacations are now well and truly over in Brussels, where the summer often ends late, especially in an election year. The new President-designate of the EU Commission has finally presented her list of Commissioner candidates, albeit with some delay due to the political situation in the member states. The lengthy process of hearings in the EU Parliament will now begin. This will not be a sure-fire success.

The renewed election of the CDU politician as President-designate of the EU Commission was already remarkable. The day before her election, Ms. von der Leyen was condemned by the European Court of Justice for the unlawful secrecy of agreements on vaccine contracts worth billions during the Corona period.

In cases T-689/21 (Auken and Others v Commission) and T-761/21 (Courtois and Others v Commission), the EU’s highest court in Luxembourg found: “The Commission did not grant the public sufficiently extensive access to the contracts for the purchase of vaccines against Covid-19. This infringement concerns, in particular, the compensation provisions of those contracts and the declarations of absence of conflicts of interest made by the members of the negotiating team for the purchase of the vaccines.”

This remarkable rebuff is also the prelude to new efforts to set up an EU-wide committee of inquiry into the political decisions taken during the coronavirus period. And yet, on Thursday, July 18, the convicted Ms. von der Leyen was re-elected to office by a majority of MEPs. This is completely incomprehensible: despite a bold entry in her police record, Ms von der Leyen can once again become Commission President, while others are banned from internships for the same reason. There was no lack of time; we could have waited another week. But there was a lack of political courage to face up to the facts, including the fact that the EU executive will soon be headed by a woman with a bold entry on her police record. This will not promote trust in the EU.

Cockfight of the party politicians

The “Spitzenkandidaten” process is dead – never again a psychodrama! Compared to the commission appointment five years ago, it is noticeable that the “Spitzenkandidaten” process no longer plays any real role. The “Spitzenkandidaten” process was an ideologically driven exaggeration of the requirements of the EU Treaty, a cockfight between party politicians.

The EU Treaty states that after the elections to the EU Parliament, the Council shall take into account the majority in the EU Parliament when determining the candidate for the office of President of the Commission. This is nothing more than a codification of common sense, namely that the Council proposes a candidate to the Parliament with a (preferably clear) parliamentary majority. However, the EU federalists overstretched this rule and demanded that the head of the largest political group in the EU Parliament should automatically be appointed Commission President by the Council. At the time, this was Manfred Weber from the CSU. He and the European federalists insisted on the self-defined “Spitzenkandidaten” process, but the heads of state and government wanted nothing to do with this. A seemingly endless psychodrama broke out between Brussels, Strasbourg and the capitals, which only ended with the surprise appointment of Ursula von der Leyen. The protagonists still remember this today, not without a shudder, and that is why the dishonest “Spitzenkandidaten” process is now dead for the time being.

The selection of Commission candidates is laid down in Article 17 of the EU Treaty: Each government shall propose its candidate from the Member State. However, Ms. von der Leyen demanded that the governments put forward two candidates, namely a woman and a man, in order to then select the candidate themselves. While the Member States went along with this clear breach of contract five years ago, presumably under the influence of the psychodrama at the time, they have now refused to do so. With the exception of France. Everything is upside down there anyway (and we are preparing a special letter from Brussels on the situation in France about Germany’s most important partner in the EU). In any case, President Macron initially nominated the previous Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, who had gained visibility as a loud and colorful bird in the Berlaymont, the official seat of the EU Commission in Brussels. Breton was set until Ms. von der Leyen called the Elysee Palace and asked for another candidate. France was forced to replace the talented Monsieur Breton in return for a politically important policy area for a less experienced Commissioner from France. What an affront. But Macron played along because the chaotic situation in France meant that he didn’t have much room for maneuver and proposed Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjournet. He is actually only known to insiders because he is a loyal Macron party soldier who, as leader of the liberal parliamentary group “Renew” (to which the FDP belongs), was the lapdog of the Spanish leader of the Social Democrats, who surprisingly became foreign minister in the government of his ex-husband Gabriel Attal and immediately gave up his EU mandate (so much for his real European convictions), but completely disappeared from the scene on the day of his inaugural visit to Germany. Now he is to become “Executive Vice-President for Prosperity and Industry”.

However, the hearings in the EU Parliament will not be a foregone conclusion. To this end, Ms von der Leyen has really stepped on the toes of the EU Parliament. On Tuesday, September 17, the Conference of Presidents of the political groups met at 9 a.m. to hear Ms von der Leyen’s new personnel tableau. Ms. von der Leyen talked for 90 long minutes without mentioning any names. Nothing concrete. Sometimes she even gave the impression that it was only a matter of a day or perhaps two until all the details had been clarified, but that the process was well under way, so nothing to worry about. Even when asked, the group chairmen were not given any specific names. After this meeting, which had been scheduled by the group leaders to find out names and at which no names were mentioned, Ms. von der Leyen hurried straight to the press room of the EU Parliament in Strasbourg, where she showed the world public an impressive PowerPoint presentation via the assembled EU correspondents: the structure of the new EU Commission with portfolios and the names of the candidates. So she had fooled the leaders of the political groups in the EU Parliament when she pretended that there was still a bit of negotiating to be done, because everything was already decided. Will the group leaders let this pass so easily?

Two fundamental questions at the hearings in the specialist committees

The hearings in the specialist committees focus on two fundamental questions, namely the personal probity of the candidate (which should be an entirely relative criterion after the election of Ms. von der Leyen despite her conviction by the ECJ), and the specialist knowledge of the policy area. The chairmen of the parliamentary groups then decide by a two-thirds majority whether the candidate has passed the exam. A two-thirds majority is no longer so easy to achieve in this new EU Parliament with a strengthened right-wing (and two new political groups, namely the “Patriots” (ex-“Identity & Democracy” group) and “Europe of Sovereign States” around the AfD alongside the existing “Conservatives and Reformers” group). And so the line-ups for the hearings also become a matter of scheduling. The controversial candidates (especially Orban loyalist Oliver Varhely, Meloni man Raffaele Fitto and Belgian Hadja Lahbib) should aim for an early hearing date. After all, if they fail due to party-political considerations, their political groups can block other candidates afterwards due to the lack of a two-thirds majority. So it remains exciting.
Enjoy the late summer!

Your Junius

Readers have known Junius for many years and, despite all of life’s adverse circumstances, Junius will continue to report faithfully and objectively on political developments in the EU in Brussels in this year’s “Letter from Brussels”.As a reminder, we have been asked several times to reveal the identity of the letter writer from Brussels. This is a joint effort by the informants and the editorial team. It is reminiscent of the so-called Junius letters, in which a pseudonym named Junius published letters about events at court and in Parliament in the Public Advertiser in London from January 21, 1769 to May 12, 1772. In these letters, the machinations of the royal family, ministers, judges and MPs were satirically skewered with expert knowledge of the internal processes and intrigues. The Junius-letters are regarded as the first evidence of the journalistic right to refuse to testify.