After the overwhelming Yes vote in the Irish Lisbon 2009 referendum, the democratic legitimacy of the Lisbon Treaty has been secured in all 27 EU member states. Only two signatures are missing.
It is time to get back to business, but first the institutions of the European Union must be put in working order.
On 1 November 2009 the old Commission will turn into a caretaker administration. Hopefully a new Commission, under the Lisbon Treaty rules, can take over soon. The European capitals should now publish their proposed candidates, if they have not done so. The new Commission should move towards parity between women and men.
President-elect José Manuel Barroso should keep the public informed about the proposals and the process.
***
Given the minimal size of the electoral college, the President of the European Council and the High Representative/Vice-President now require open nominations from the capitals to allow for a public debate.
Only those who have public government backing should be considered eligible. Give each country the right to propose one candidate for each post. They can be their own nationals or from another member state.
The process becomes a mockery of sound decision making in step with EU citizens, if it is conducted in secret and public discussion is based on leaks to the media.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label nomination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nomination. Show all posts
Monday, 5 October 2009
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Barroso officially nominated
When the European Council on 18 to 19 June 2009 put forward José Manuel Barroso as the intended nominee for the post of President of the Commission, this blog wondered why the heads of state or government did not make an official nomination, why the European Parliament should vote on an unofficial proposal and what the European leaders hoped to gain by delaying the nomination for a few weeks.
Typically, no reasons have been given, but today the Council has issued a press release on a written procedure:
“Council decides to nominate Mr. José Manuel Durão Barroso as the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission for 2009-2014
Following the European Council on 18 and 19 June 2009, the Council, in the composition of Heads of State or Government, adopted today a decision nominating Mr. José Manuel Durão Barroso as the person the Council intends to appoint as President of the Commission for the period from 1 November 2009 to 31 October 2014.
The decision will be forwarded to the European Parliament.” (Brussels, 9 July 2009 11850/09) (Presse 212)
***
Sweden’s EU Minister Cecilia Malmström has commented in positive terms on her blog.
***
Meanwhile, the political groups in the European Parliament had told the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt that the EP vote on Barroso will take place later than the July 2009 inaugural session.
Despite the timing, after the tripartite agreement between the political groups of the European People’s Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (PASD) and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) the road seems to be clear for a reappointment of Barroso, as reported by Jean Quatremer on Coulisses de Bruxelles.
***
This will intensify the efforts by the national governments to propose members for the next Commission, if they have not done so, and to jockey for important posts for the next five years, although it is still unclear if the new Commission will be confirmed under Lisbon of Nice Treaty rules.
Ralf Grahn
Typically, no reasons have been given, but today the Council has issued a press release on a written procedure:
“Council decides to nominate Mr. José Manuel Durão Barroso as the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission for 2009-2014
Following the European Council on 18 and 19 June 2009, the Council, in the composition of Heads of State or Government, adopted today a decision nominating Mr. José Manuel Durão Barroso as the person the Council intends to appoint as President of the Commission for the period from 1 November 2009 to 31 October 2014.
The decision will be forwarded to the European Parliament.” (Brussels, 9 July 2009 11850/09) (Presse 212)
***
Sweden’s EU Minister Cecilia Malmström has commented in positive terms on her blog.
***
Meanwhile, the political groups in the European Parliament had told the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt that the EP vote on Barroso will take place later than the July 2009 inaugural session.
Despite the timing, after the tripartite agreement between the political groups of the European People’s Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (PASD) and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) the road seems to be clear for a reappointment of Barroso, as reported by Jean Quatremer on Coulisses de Bruxelles.
***
This will intensify the efforts by the national governments to propose members for the next Commission, if they have not done so, and to jockey for important posts for the next five years, although it is still unclear if the new Commission will be confirmed under Lisbon of Nice Treaty rules.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Did the European Council nominate Barroso?
The European Council giveth and the European Council taketh away?
Yes, I have to admit that I find the antics of the European Council disturbing. The media have reported that José Manuel Barroso has been nominated as the intended President of the Commission, but read the Presidency Conclusions carefully:
European Council 18 to 19 June 2009 – Presidency Conclusions (Council document 11225/09 CONCL 2)
“Nomination of the President of the Commission
6. The Heads of State or Government agreed unanimously on the name of Mr. José Manuel DURÃO BARROSO as the person they intend to nominate as President of the European Commission for the period 2009-2014.
7. The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and the Prime Minister of Sweden, as the present and the incoming Presidents of the European Council, will have discussions with the European Parliament in order to determine whether the Parliament is in a position to approve that nomination at its July plenary session.
8. In the light of these discussions, the Council, in the composition of Heads of State or Government, will, on the basis of Article 214(2), 1st subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, formalise its decision on the nomination of the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission.
9. The process of nomination of the other persons who will be appointed as members of the Commission can only be initiated when the legal basis for the nomination procedure has become clear.”
***
Point 6 tells the same story as the media reports, but point 8 of the Presidency Conclusions makes the nomination conditional. There will be a formal nomination only at a later date.
How can the European Parliament (and the newly elected EP convenes and constitutes the political groups only on 14 July 2009) respond formally to an informal inquiry?
Are the heads of state or government going to formalise their nomination before the EP’s inaugural session, if the informal discussions with the EP indicate that a majority would be prepared to back Barroso?
Has the European Council scored an own goal, by being too clever by half? If not, what does it expect to gain during the coming three weeks?
Ralf Grahn
Yes, I have to admit that I find the antics of the European Council disturbing. The media have reported that José Manuel Barroso has been nominated as the intended President of the Commission, but read the Presidency Conclusions carefully:
European Council 18 to 19 June 2009 – Presidency Conclusions (Council document 11225/09 CONCL 2)
“Nomination of the President of the Commission
6. The Heads of State or Government agreed unanimously on the name of Mr. José Manuel DURÃO BARROSO as the person they intend to nominate as President of the European Commission for the period 2009-2014.
7. The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and the Prime Minister of Sweden, as the present and the incoming Presidents of the European Council, will have discussions with the European Parliament in order to determine whether the Parliament is in a position to approve that nomination at its July plenary session.
8. In the light of these discussions, the Council, in the composition of Heads of State or Government, will, on the basis of Article 214(2), 1st subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, formalise its decision on the nomination of the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission.
9. The process of nomination of the other persons who will be appointed as members of the Commission can only be initiated when the legal basis for the nomination procedure has become clear.”
***
Point 6 tells the same story as the media reports, but point 8 of the Presidency Conclusions makes the nomination conditional. There will be a formal nomination only at a later date.
How can the European Parliament (and the newly elected EP convenes and constitutes the political groups only on 14 July 2009) respond formally to an informal inquiry?
Are the heads of state or government going to formalise their nomination before the EP’s inaugural session, if the informal discussions with the EP indicate that a majority would be prepared to back Barroso?
Has the European Council scored an own goal, by being too clever by half? If not, what does it expect to gain during the coming three weeks?
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 12 June 2009
EU Commission President: Facts and speculation Barroso vs Verhofstadt
If the European Council 18 to 19 June 2009 nominates José Manuel Barroso, by a qualified majority, to become President of the Commission, the matter appears before the newly elected European Parliament for approval.
Under the Treaty of Nice, still in force, the approval requires a simple majority (Article 214 of the Treaty establishing the European Community; TEC).
The political groups in the European are not fully formed yet, but with 264 MEPs the biggest group, the European People’s Party (EPP) is still far from a majority for Barroso.
The official Election results are somewhat behind the events with regard to the groups, but offer the main facts.
Rainbow coalition?
In principle, a rainbow coalition of the Left, ASDE (ex PES), the Greens and ALDE (Liberals) would now have 347 votes, after the Italian Partito Democratico joined the renamed Socialist Group.
This is fairly close to a majority of the representatives (369), but it still looks like a chimera, even if Barroso is seen as a weak choice by swathes of politicians and public opinion.
Many socialist and liberal MEPs belong to national parties led by heads of governments behind a re-election of Barroso.
British, Spanish and Portuguese PES representatives were among these long before the European elections. Only the Democrats part of ALDE has indicated that it will vote against Barroso. Other groups and individual MEPs might fall into line with the nomination by the European Council, possibly unanimous.
Without clear indications to the contrary, there is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow, although a secret ballot offers MEPs with reservations about Barroso the chance to defy their national party leaders by voting for Guy Verhofstadt.
EPP plus?
The ‘European Conservatives’ of the UK Tories, the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS) and the Czech ODS have 49 MEPs at the moment, but we are still waiting for the announcements on further recruitment among the remaining 76 MEPs (provisionally classified as Others, UEN, IND/DEM).
In theory, these presently unsorted MEPs could boost the EPP vote to 389, and it is possible that many among the 125 nationalists, anti-federalists and others prefer Barroso as the lesser evil.
However, some of them are rejectionists at heart, with scant inclination to vote constructively. For Barroso and the heads of state or government it would be an embarrassment to have the Commission President carried into office on the votes of ultra-nationalists, xenophobes and fascists.
Therefore, expect the members of the European Council to lean on MEPs to pre-empt a rainbow coalition.
Ralf Grahn
Under the Treaty of Nice, still in force, the approval requires a simple majority (Article 214 of the Treaty establishing the European Community; TEC).
The political groups in the European are not fully formed yet, but with 264 MEPs the biggest group, the European People’s Party (EPP) is still far from a majority for Barroso.
The official Election results are somewhat behind the events with regard to the groups, but offer the main facts.
Rainbow coalition?
In principle, a rainbow coalition of the Left, ASDE (ex PES), the Greens and ALDE (Liberals) would now have 347 votes, after the Italian Partito Democratico joined the renamed Socialist Group.
This is fairly close to a majority of the representatives (369), but it still looks like a chimera, even if Barroso is seen as a weak choice by swathes of politicians and public opinion.
Many socialist and liberal MEPs belong to national parties led by heads of governments behind a re-election of Barroso.
British, Spanish and Portuguese PES representatives were among these long before the European elections. Only the Democrats part of ALDE has indicated that it will vote against Barroso. Other groups and individual MEPs might fall into line with the nomination by the European Council, possibly unanimous.
Without clear indications to the contrary, there is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow, although a secret ballot offers MEPs with reservations about Barroso the chance to defy their national party leaders by voting for Guy Verhofstadt.
EPP plus?
The ‘European Conservatives’ of the UK Tories, the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS) and the Czech ODS have 49 MEPs at the moment, but we are still waiting for the announcements on further recruitment among the remaining 76 MEPs (provisionally classified as Others, UEN, IND/DEM).
In theory, these presently unsorted MEPs could boost the EPP vote to 389, and it is possible that many among the 125 nationalists, anti-federalists and others prefer Barroso as the lesser evil.
However, some of them are rejectionists at heart, with scant inclination to vote constructively. For Barroso and the heads of state or government it would be an embarrassment to have the Commission President carried into office on the votes of ultra-nationalists, xenophobes and fascists.
Therefore, expect the members of the European Council to lean on MEPs to pre-empt a rainbow coalition.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 2 March 2009
European Parliament: Composition of committees
In the European elections candidates are heavily dependent on their national parties, especially where they have to be in an electable position on a closed list. Theoretically every member of the European Parliament is elected by the citizens, but in practice the battles decide a few marginal seats (and individual fates) between the political parties.
Once elected, the member of the European Parliament (MEP) depends on his or her political group to get ahead in the game. Despite being loose coalitions ideologically, the political groups handle the levers of power.
The EP committees offer one example.
The political groups in the European Parliament are central to the composition of the committees, where the preparatory political work takes place. The political groups and the non-attached members submit nominations.
The Conference of Presidents, where the EP President and the chairs of the political groups meet, submits proposals to Parliament (plenary), striving to reflect the composition of the Parliament.
The full Parliament can overturn the Conference proposals only on the basis of amendments tabled by at least forty members (which happens to be more than the number of non-attached members).
This means that the individual MEPs depend on the support of their political group if they want to land coveted committee memberships.
The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (16th edition, October 2008):
Rule 177 Composition of committees
1. Members of committees and committees of inquiry shall be elected after nominations have been submitted by the political groups and the non-attached Members. The Conference of Presidents shall submit proposals to Parliament. The composition of the committees shall, as far as possible, reflect the composition of Parliament.
-----
Official explanation: When Members change political groups they shall retain, for the remainder of their two and a half year term of office, the seats they hold in parliamentary committees. However, if a Member's change of political group has the effect of disturbing the fair representation of political views in a committee, new proposals for the composition of that committee shall be made by the Conference of Presidents in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 1, second sentence, whereby the individual rights of the Member concerned shall be guaranteed.
-----
2. Amendments to the proposals of the Conference of Presidents shall be admissible only if they are tabled by at least forty Members. Parliament shall vote on such amendments by secret ballot.
3. Members shall be deemed to be elected on the basis of the proposals by the Conference of Presidents, as and where amended pursuant to paragraph 2.
4. Where a political group fails to submit nominations for membership of a committee of inquiry pursuant to paragraph 1 within a time limit set by the Conference of Presidents, the Conference of Presidents shall submit to Parliament only the nominations communicated to it within that time limit.
5. The Conference of Presidents may provisionally decide to fill any vacancy on a committee with the agreement of the persons to be appointed and having regard to paragraph 1.
6. Any such changes shall be placed before Parliament for ratification at the next sitting.
***
Substitutes
The political groups appoint the substitutes even more directly:
Rule 178 Substitutes
1. The political groups and the non-attached Members may appoint a number of permanent substitutes for each committee equal to the number of full members representing them on the committee. The President shall be informed accordingly.
These permanent substitutes shall be entitled to attend and speak at committee meetings and, if the full member is absent, to take part in the vote.
2. In addition, in the absence of the full member and where no permanent substitutes have been appointed or in their absence, the full member of the committee may arrange to be represented at meetings by another member of the same political group, who shall be entitled to vote. The name of the substitute shall be notified to the chair of the committee prior to the beginning of the voting session.
-----
The rest of the text is probably meant to be an official explanation in its entirety despite the inconsistent use of italics:
Paragraph 2 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the non-attached Members.
The advance notification provided for in the last sentence of paragraph 2 must be given before the end of the debate or before the opening of the vote on the item or items for which the full member is to be replaced.
The provisions of this Rule encompass two concepts which are clearly defined by this text:
- a political group may not have more permanent substitutes for a committee than it has full members;
- only political groups are entitled to appoint permanent substitutes, on the sole condition that they inform the President.
To conclude:
- the status of permanent substitutes depends exclusively on membership of a given political group;
- where the number of a political group's full members in a committee is altered, the maximum number of permanent substitutes which it can appoint to that committee is altered accordingly;
- Members who change political groups may not keep the status of permanent substitute which they had as members of their original group;
- a committee member may not under any circumstances be a substitute for a colleague who belongs to another political group.
***
A few more examples will follow on the role of the political groups.
Ralf Grahn
Once elected, the member of the European Parliament (MEP) depends on his or her political group to get ahead in the game. Despite being loose coalitions ideologically, the political groups handle the levers of power.
The EP committees offer one example.
The political groups in the European Parliament are central to the composition of the committees, where the preparatory political work takes place. The political groups and the non-attached members submit nominations.
The Conference of Presidents, where the EP President and the chairs of the political groups meet, submits proposals to Parliament (plenary), striving to reflect the composition of the Parliament.
The full Parliament can overturn the Conference proposals only on the basis of amendments tabled by at least forty members (which happens to be more than the number of non-attached members).
This means that the individual MEPs depend on the support of their political group if they want to land coveted committee memberships.
The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (16th edition, October 2008):
Rule 177 Composition of committees
1. Members of committees and committees of inquiry shall be elected after nominations have been submitted by the political groups and the non-attached Members. The Conference of Presidents shall submit proposals to Parliament. The composition of the committees shall, as far as possible, reflect the composition of Parliament.
-----
Official explanation: When Members change political groups they shall retain, for the remainder of their two and a half year term of office, the seats they hold in parliamentary committees. However, if a Member's change of political group has the effect of disturbing the fair representation of political views in a committee, new proposals for the composition of that committee shall be made by the Conference of Presidents in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 1, second sentence, whereby the individual rights of the Member concerned shall be guaranteed.
-----
2. Amendments to the proposals of the Conference of Presidents shall be admissible only if they are tabled by at least forty Members. Parliament shall vote on such amendments by secret ballot.
3. Members shall be deemed to be elected on the basis of the proposals by the Conference of Presidents, as and where amended pursuant to paragraph 2.
4. Where a political group fails to submit nominations for membership of a committee of inquiry pursuant to paragraph 1 within a time limit set by the Conference of Presidents, the Conference of Presidents shall submit to Parliament only the nominations communicated to it within that time limit.
5. The Conference of Presidents may provisionally decide to fill any vacancy on a committee with the agreement of the persons to be appointed and having regard to paragraph 1.
6. Any such changes shall be placed before Parliament for ratification at the next sitting.
***
Substitutes
The political groups appoint the substitutes even more directly:
Rule 178 Substitutes
1. The political groups and the non-attached Members may appoint a number of permanent substitutes for each committee equal to the number of full members representing them on the committee. The President shall be informed accordingly.
These permanent substitutes shall be entitled to attend and speak at committee meetings and, if the full member is absent, to take part in the vote.
2. In addition, in the absence of the full member and where no permanent substitutes have been appointed or in their absence, the full member of the committee may arrange to be represented at meetings by another member of the same political group, who shall be entitled to vote. The name of the substitute shall be notified to the chair of the committee prior to the beginning of the voting session.
-----
The rest of the text is probably meant to be an official explanation in its entirety despite the inconsistent use of italics:
Paragraph 2 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the non-attached Members.
The advance notification provided for in the last sentence of paragraph 2 must be given before the end of the debate or before the opening of the vote on the item or items for which the full member is to be replaced.
The provisions of this Rule encompass two concepts which are clearly defined by this text:
- a political group may not have more permanent substitutes for a committee than it has full members;
- only political groups are entitled to appoint permanent substitutes, on the sole condition that they inform the President.
To conclude:
- the status of permanent substitutes depends exclusively on membership of a given political group;
- where the number of a political group's full members in a committee is altered, the maximum number of permanent substitutes which it can appoint to that committee is altered accordingly;
- Members who change political groups may not keep the status of permanent substitute which they had as members of their original group;
- a committee member may not under any circumstances be a substitute for a colleague who belongs to another political group.
***
A few more examples will follow on the role of the political groups.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
