Brussels Diary

With the renomination of José Manuel Barroso now confirmed, the real fight over the next European commission can begin. The allocation of portfolios at the start of the commission president’s term is arguably his most important job because it sets the ideological framework for the next five years. Some portfolios, such as competition, are hugely powerful; others, such as multilingualism, were invented so more member states could have a representative on the ever-expanding “college” of commissioners.

Most of the big member states have already staked their claims to one of the economic portfolios. Barroso’s next step of negotiating with national governments will be crucial. But however this goes, it seems inevitable that the Barroso II commission will be less committed to the free market than Barroso I. The focus of opposition to Barroso’s renomination as president was the accusation, chiefly emanating from France, that he is an “ultra-liberal.”

One appointment he made five years ago has not served him well in particular. Charlie McCreevy’s term as internal market commissioner has been little short of disastrous for the cause of a deregulated Europe. The former Irish finance minister, a convinced free-marketeer, showed little interest in being in Brussels and even less in regulating financial services where, apparently, the market knew best. Then came the crash. McCreevy proved politically inept too, defending to the Irish press his right to go to the races at Cheltenham, and saying that most Europeans would vote against the Lisbon treaty if they had the chance (a comment now being used by the Irish referendum “no” campaign). But who will fill his shoes?



France wants the internal market but there is a complex interplay between who Paris will send and what job Barroso is willing to make available. The main contender is Michel Barnier, a former European commissioner and then foreign and agriculture minister in France, though there is also talk (played down in Paris) of its current finance minister, Christine Lagarde. One possibility is that France is offered internal market but without responsibility for financial regulation, which would be separated off into a specific portfolio. That, said one Eurocrat, would “allow the French to say they have got what they wanted, without actually giving it to them”—though it might not be a job important enough for Lagarde.

Britain and Poland have also asked for an economic job, although Italy is said to want a new, combined, transport and tourism portfolio. Sweden may send to the commission its foreign minister, Carl Bildt, who was seen as a potential new EU foreign policy supremo but whose harsh criticism of Russia has made him unlikely to get the job. Were he to be available for the commission, Bildt would stand to gain a big job. And Germany has ambitions for energy, once considered a backwater but now central to relations with Moscow and negotiations over pipeline deals. So far, according to one senior aide, Barroso has made no promises, while hinting to each national capital that they will probably get something close to what they want.

How many commissioners?

One of the reasons Barroso can’t make any decisions at the moment is that he doesn’t know how many jobs he will have to share around. If the Lisbon treaty is approved by the Irish voters in early October and signed by the Czech and Polish presidents, there will be one per member state. But if not then a big fight looms. The Nice treaty stipulates that there should be fewer commissioners than member statesThe easiest solution would be to deprive the country that holds the EU foreign policy job, currently occupied by Spain’s Javier Solana, of a seat at the commission table, simply cutting the total by one.

But the EU’s top legal adviser, Jean-Claude Piris, believes this would break the spirit, and possibly the word, of the treaty. He has suggested that, if Lisbon should fall and the EU’s rotating presidency continues unreformed, the ten countries due to hold the presidency over the next five years should lose their right to a commissioner. The idea has caused consternation in some European capitals but has not been totally rejected in the places that count—since neither Britain, nor France nor Germany is due to hold the presidency during this time and all three would therefore keep a commissioner.

Saving the bluefin tuna

Proposals by the European commission to support a ban on the bluefin tuna have proved controversial with the southern European nations whose fishermen make their livelihoods from the species. So when the commission produced its press release to announce the decision, it went through several drafts to ensure all the correct political nuances were reflected. “We must act on the best scientific advice available to us,” ran the quote from Stavros Dimas, the environment commissioner, “and scientists say that urgent action is needed to safeguard the future of one of the ocean’s most emblematic creatures.” Most emblematic? It turns out that officials spent hours trying to find the right word to describe the bluefin tuna, rejecting “beautiful” and several other adjectives as inappropriate. Bored by the lengthy discussion one wag mischievously suggested the word “delicious”—which nearly slipped into the final version.