The Guardian view on the commission presidency: old politics in new times
|
Version 0 of 1. Seen from the capitals of the European Union's other member states, Britain can seem like the persistently disruptive pupil in the class. Never reconciled to the single currency, staunchly opposed to the Schengen borderless travel area, always insisting on its budget rebate, Britain now also seeks to block Jean-Claude Juncker's path to the commission presidency as a preliminary to forcing a radical reduction of its already loose terms of membership. Some of Britain's tactics in opposing Mr Juncker's candidacy may have added to the irritation he expressed this week. To say, as David Cameron did to Angela Merkel, that a Juncker appointment would mean that the UK would have to leave the EU, takes risks with the national interest in remaining in the EU. Mr Cameron should choose his words more carefully. So should parts of the British press. None of this should blind the rest of the EU to the seriousness of the issues, the depth of feeling in Britain, or to the fact that others, not just the British government, are anxious to stop Mr Juncker from succeeding José Manuel Barroso. Mr Juncker is as mistaken in demonising the British as some Brits are in demonising him. But his opponents are right, first and foremost, because the job matters. The commission initiates European law-making, so its president has the power to make life harder or easier for the member states. Mr Juncker is a federalist by instinct. But "more Europe" is absolutely not the priority right now, for Britain or anywhere else. The old order has failed and lacks support. It is an open secret that treaty change is not on the cards because the chances of France voting for it are remote, never mind the UK. Mr Cameron and his allies are right for a second reason too. Mr Juncker claims that, as the approved presidential candidate of the centre-right European People's party, the grouping that finished top of the heap in the May elections, he is the winner and should get the job. This is a false claim. The EPP lost many seats, falling from 274 MEPs in 2009 to 221 in 2014. Its share of the vote sank from 36% to 29%. So Mr Juncker was a loser, as well as a winner. Above all, and however regrettable it may be, most of the 43% of European voters who actually voted did so on a national basis. Neither Mr Juncker nor the European parliament has a mandate as strong as those conferred on national governments. You do not create a European public by pretending that a European public exists, as Mr Juncker and his supporters do. It follows that the appointment of the next commission president must rest chiefly with the national governments. There are problems with this, not least on transparency grounds. It will trigger confrontations in Brussels. Yet a stand needs to be taken against the idealistic imposition of a flawed political union for which Europe is even less prepared than it was for a flawed monetary union. It should be understood, too, that Britain's national interest is engaged here. A commission president chosen by the member states would offer Mr Cameron more hope of negotiating changes to the relationship with the EU that could win support in a prospective referendum. Who should get the job? Candidates from a much wider pool than the European parliament, but including Mr Juncker, should put themselves forward. The overriding interest is for a commission president who understands the scale of Europe's challenges – not least in the aftermath of May's Eurosceptic upsurge –and one who also understands both Britain's problems and Britain's importance. Christine Lagarde is one such possibility, not least because the scale of the Eurosceptic challenge in France means she needs less persuasion about the inevitability of reform. What matters above all is that Europe needs leaders who grasp the need to put the European Union right, not leaders who could easily make its problems worse, as Mr Juncker might. |