It is still not clear whether Jean-Claude Juncker, the former prime minister of Luxembourg (he was also president of the Eurogroup from 2005 to 2013) will succeed in his attempt to become the next president of the European Commission, although the indications are that he will.
Juncker has the broad support of the European Parliament and a number of centre-right and centre-left European leaders, including, crucially, German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Malta is also believed to be supporting Juncker. However, he is opposed by British Prime Minister David Cameron, who considers him a federalist, as well as to a lesser extent by Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, both of whom consider him not reform-minded enough.
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, considered a reformer, has so far been non-committal, saying there could be other candidates for the post. Renzi did publicly say that Juncker has no automatic right to the job, but hasn’t officially opposed the nomination. He simply told the press: “Someone who wants to continue with the policies of the past few years will not have our consent.” Indeed, Renzi could well turn out to be a kingmaker in this selection process.
Juncker is also opposed by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who asked sarcastically: “Why should I support somebody from Luxembourg?” It is believed, however, that Orbán is opposing Juncker for the simple reason that Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Justice from Luxembourg, and a fellow EPP member, had criticised the Hungarian government for new laws it had passed governing the media and the judiciary.
According to the Lisbon Treaty, the European Council (representing the member states) has to “take into account the elections to the European Parliament” when proposing a candidate for European Commission president. This was an attempt to break from the past and to make the appointment of the most powerful executive office in the EU in a more open and democratic way. It might not be a perfect formula, as the turnout to the European elections tends to be on the low side, but it was certainly a step in the right direction.
Before last May’s European elections, each major political group in the European Parliament nominated its official candidate for Commission president and Juncker was the candidate of the European People’s Party. The EPP emerged as the largest bloc after the poll, which is why the former Luxembourg prime minister is now the leading contender to head the EU executive.
Cameron and the other leaders who are not keen on Juncker’s candidacy were certainly aware of the arrangements under the Lisbon Treaty and surely knew that each political bloc in the European Parliament had nominated its preferred candidate for the post of European Commission president. Yet they chose to completely ignore this reality.
Unfortunately, upon becoming the leader of the Conservative Party, Cameron ended his party’s affiliation with the EPP, a major mistake in my opinion, and so had absolutely no say in the selection of Juncker as the official candidate of the main centre-right bloc in the European Parliament.
As for Sweden’s Reinfeldt, his Moderate Party is a member of the EPP, so his opposition to Juncker is strange, while The Netherlands’ Rutte leads a party, the VVD, which belongs to the Liberal group in the European Parliament, whose candidate for Commission president was its leader Guy Verhofstadt, an arch federalist.
Obviously conscious of Ukip’s recent gains at the polls, Cameron is the European leader most opposed to Juncker’s appointment and he unsuccessfully tried to convince Merkel to oppose his nomination, saying the former Luxembourg leader was not the right person to reform the EU, having been part of the Brussels establishment for such a long time.
It is important to keep in mind that the UK has a history of opposing candidates from Benelux countries to head the European Commission, as they are considered too federalist. John Major had vetoed the appointment of former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene (such appointments required unanimity then) while Tony Blair had opposed the nomination of Guy Verhofstadt, also a former prime minister of Belgium.
German press reports also claimed that Cameron threatened a Juncker appointment would lead to a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU before 2017, and that the result would likely be negative.
Last week, Cameron, Merkel, Rutte and Reinfeldt met in Sweden to discuss, among other things, who should take over the EU executive. In an obvious reference to Cameron, the German Chancellor, who had been under domestic pressure to back Juncker, remarked:
The UK has a history of opposing candidates from Benelux countries to head the European Commission
“I am for Jean-Claude Juncker. But when I made that statement in Germany I also made the point that we act in a European spirit, otherwise you would never reach a compromise. Thus we cannot just consign to the backburner the question of the European spirit. Threats are not part and parcel of that spirit. That is not part of the way in which we usually proceed.”
With Merkel committed to Juncker, it looks like Cameron’s strategy has backfired, and the British Prime Minister now has little room for manoeuvre. Cameron chose to oppose Juncker’s appointment in principle, without even discussing with the former Luxembourg premier his possible conditions for supporting him.
I think Richard Corbett, a newly-elected British Labour MEP, who previously worked as EU Council president Herman Van Rompuy’s chief of staff, was entirely correct when he said: “If I were Mr Cameron, I would go to Juncker and say: These are my conditions.” In such a scenario, Juncker would at least be given the chance to convince Cameron of his commitment to reforming the EU, and then the UK Prime Minister could judge for himself.
Juncker may not be the ideal person to head the European Commission, but he deserves to be heard and to be given a chance. Before being given the go-ahead by EU leaders, the European Council should make it clear to the former Luxembourg prime minister that their approval is conditional on him carrying out major changes in Brussels and recognising that there are certain policy areas which are best left to the member states.
The European Parliament, which has to approve his appointment, should do the same.