This was the historic month when the new President of the new Commission, Mr Barroso, withdrew the list of names of Commissioners that the Parliament was being asked to approve. He did this to avoid an historic defeat, since it looked as if a majority of MEPs, led by the Socialists, would vote against his team. The ostensible reason was his refusal to drop Mr Buttiglione, or remove from him the Justice and Home Affairs portfolio. The real reason was the Left's aversion to any nominee from Mr Berlusconi, and their opportunistic aversion to Buttiglione's combative Catholicism: it was a crude Left versus Right power play and marked the end of the cosily consensual approach that has characterised the European Parliament for decades. If we had voted, defeat would have done great damage to Barroso's leadership; withdrawal in the face of likely defeat is a starting handicap for him.

 

Thus the Parliament finally exercised to the full one of the important powers that it has already gained through changes to the Rome Treaty. The relevant article of the Treaty simply says: "The governments of the Member States shall, by common accord with the nominee for President, nominate the other persons whom they intend to appoint as Members of the Commission. The President and other members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament". So MEPs cannot finally vote against individuals. However they get the chance to assess individual Commissioner's suitability by holding hearings in each committee. Committees may then vote on a candidate but most simply send their conclusions in a short letter to the President of the Parliament.

 

This was the process where the Italian nominee, Mr Buttiglione, ran aground. When asked, in the Civil Liberties Committee, about his attitude to homosexuality, he gave the classic Catholic intellectual answer that it was a sin but not a crime. The roof then fell in on him, metaphorically speaking, at such a wildly politically incorrect answer and the committee voted, by only one vote (26-25), not to approve his nomination. No one noticed that the Legal Affairs Committee, which had also assessed his competence to be Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner, felt that he would do a good job.

 

The mathematics of the Parliament suddenly became important. The centre right, which supported Barroso, was outnumbered by his leftist opponents. The figures are as follows:

 

Centre right (EPP-ED) group where UK Conservatives are           - 268 MEPs

Socialists                                                                               - 200 MEPs

Liberals                                                                                  - 88 MEPs

Greens                                                                                   - 42 MEPs

United Left (i.e.washed  up ex-Communists)                              -  41 MEPs

Independence/Democracy group (UKIP and allies)                     - 37 MEPs

Europe of Nations group                                                         -  27 MEPs

Non-attached                                                                         -  29 MEPs

 

There was great unhappiness in the EPP-ED group at what was happening. Catholics there felt particularly embattled and very angry. The French press were asking the pertinent question "Is it now impossible for a Catholic to become a Commissioner?". Our Hungarian colleagues supported Barroso but felt particularly sore in being asked to vote for a Barroso list that contained the ex-Communist Hungarian Mr Kovacs. As nominee for the energy portfolio his hearings had exposed his total inadequacy. Some British Conservatives were reluctant to vote for a Commission containing Peter Mandelson. But he performed well at his hearing and overall we wanted to support a Commission which seemed likely to reflect our concerns about the promotion of free markets, and insistence on better enforcement of EU legislation.

 

Labour MEPs ignored reported pleas from Downing Street and were prepared to vote against Barroso (and Mandelson). Liberal MEPs were all over the place (as usual) because the Liberal leader Graham Watson made a rousing speech insisting that the Parliament should use its powers to reject – and then admitted that he would vote against rejection. UKIP would have voted against any Commission. They bounced about on points of order but are greatly handicapped by the fact that the MEP who speaks for them on these occasions is a Dane, who lacks the full venom quotient of the true UKIP ranter.

 

Anyway Mr Frattini, the Italian Foreign Minister, has now replaced Mr Buttiglione and we will probably vote in favour of the final Barroso team in November. Mr Kovacs is still there but may be moved to another portfolio. The Latvian, Mrs Udre, has fallen victim to a Latvian general election in the interim (there were accusations of corruption in the background too). She has been replaced by Andris Piebalgs, who may take on the energy portfolio.

 

The whole process showed the Parliament using its powers in a highly partisan way in order to thwart the Council of Ministers's choice. This was inevitable: give elected members a sketchy power and they will ultimately use it to the full. But the episode is more damaging than heartening. It damages the balance of power between the institutions and makes it more likely that the Member States will find ways of going round the Parliament, rather than tangling with obstructive MEPs.

 

The next area of conflict is bound to be the EU budget. Ministers want to reduce it; the majority of MEPs want to extend it. We voted on the first reading of the 2005 budget this month and we Conservatives supported the Council's recommendation to reduce it by 4 per cent. Labour and the Liberal Democrats both supported budget entries to use EU funds (to which we all contribute through taxation) to support campaigns to ratify the constitution.

 

As a change from all this I took part in a debate on how the EU might sponsor research into the possible effect of new naval sonars in causing dolphin deaths. The Greens solution was apparently to stop using the sonars at all but (a) we are not  sure that they do cause damage and (b) it seems a bad idea to stop defending ourselves against sea-borne attack just now. I am glad to say that the Commission hopes to publish its conclusions, with suggestions for possible action, next year. The possible contribution of naval sonar to dolphin deaths (200-300 in 2003-4) should not deflect us from the main aim of banning indiscriminate pair trawling in the Channel.

 

Caroline Jackson MEP