Left talks tough despite weakness of position
Tuesday 15 September 2009By EU Reporter Correspondents
As the European left looks set to suffer a defeat with the confirmation of Jose Manuel Barroso as President of the Commission for a second term, MEPs are still insisting that they can shape the future political direction of the EU.
As left-wing critics of Barroso are forced to admit that the European Parliament will indeed reinstate the current President, the combined forces of opposition continue to stress that they are not irrelevant when it comes to influencing the social dimensions of the EU.
The only question is whether or not the Left's vision of moulding “the democratic shape of the Commission” actually comes to anything, particularly as divisions within the left itself remain; none more so than within the socialist group in the European Parliament, whose official policy is one of abstention when it comes to the vital plenary vote in Wednesday’s session.
After intense talks with Barroso, the Socialist Chairman, Martin Schulz has still not been able to pull his group together to from a united position, leading to a compromise whereby the group will not reveal its obvious divisions in public.
Instead Schulz is insisting that the EU, in the shape of the new college of commissioners, should “take a new tack, a social democratic one”.
“Financial markets are not regulated the way they should be. We need to adopt a new philosophy on markets, a new philosophy within the European Commission”, he stated, before adding that he aims to push for a social democratic Internal Market Commissioner when member states reveal their chosen appointees.
Schulz has also stated that it is “logical” for the powerful new post of High Commissioner of Foreign Affairs to be of the socialist family if Barroso retains his current position.
But despite this tough talking, the relative weakness of the Socialist position cannot be hidden; “brandishing a policy of abstention isn’t exactly a show of strength”, said one left wing source in Parliament.
Further to the split in the Socialists, the Greens have also suffered a setback after their policy of delaying the appointment of a new Commission President was knocked back in Parliament. Group Co-Chair, Daniel Cohn-Bendit may still push the argument in public that it is morally and politically objectionable to appoint the full Commission under separate rules of procedure, but the issue has receded into importance as the hard business of finalising the Commission actually gets under way.
For their part, the Greens are lobbying for a sympathetic Environment or Finance Commisioner. Like the Socialists they are stressing the importance of a “social Europe” and have also hinted that they intend to give prospective Commissioners a thorough grilling when the face Parliament late in the autumn.
But, as Martin Schulz admitted, Barroso is not just the “candidiate of the right”, but also the “candidate of heads of states and governments”.
When Member States finally reveal their Commission appointees, the question is, is the European Parliament powerful enough to impose its own unique mark on proceedings, or, as in the present case, will the might of the Council prove too hard to break?