Liberal candidate Guy Verhofstadt and the “Federalist Cause”

Guy Verhofstadt, who has led the liberal ALDE group in the European Parliament for the last few years, will be the Liberals’ candidate forthe Commission Presidency in the May elections. He has fended off Olli Rehn, the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs for the candidacy. It was unlikely that Rehn would have much appeal across Europe – he is the face of Eurozone austerity in the bailed-out countries and would represent a very fiscally hawkish face for the liberals – but he had a lot of support among the ALDE member-parties. The two will run together on a the same “ticket”, with Rehn proposed for another “senior post”. Perhaps the thinking is that if Verhofstadt doesn’t get the Presidency, he might stay as leader of the parliamentary group…?

Verhofstadt is probably a better bet than Rehn in that he’s a former Prime Minister (or Belgium) and has experience in both the European Parliament and in the European Council. He failed in his last attempt to become Commission President when Barroso first got the job in 2004… and I can’t see him having much hope this time around. Though some in his party have noted that he’s more centrist (and therefore more likely to be able to deal with either a right- or left- leaning Parliament), the liberals are probably going to have a very tough election. Two of the biggest liberal contingents – the Liberal Democrats in the UK and the FDP in Germany – are battered, with the FDP thrown out of the Bundestag last year and the Lib Dems predicted to come 4^th in the UK in the May poll.

Verhofstadt is an interesting choice given his very outspoken federalism. Having written a federalist book – The United States of Europe – and given tub-thumping federalist speeches in the European Parliament, I’ve come to think of him as the federalist Farage. He has tried to set out his vision of federalism as more democratic:

However, I can’t see a more nuanced version reaching people. And, as I said at the start of the last Parliament, a focus on federalism and pro-Europeanism is not the way to go. Federalism is a concept for organising things rather than a proper ideology that sets out values and priorities. Really, competing ideas for the Eurozone, economic growth, the CAP, etc., need to be put to people and then the decision is make on how much to do at the European level, and how to do it.

The Liberals, and Verhofstadt, will need to come out with credible policies to make their brand more bankable. It strikes me that civil liberties and data protection could be a good issue for them if they tap into it – certainly it would chime with a lot more people than vague sermons on “federalism”.

Europe doesn't need a Pro-European Alliance in the EP

Guy Verhofstadt has spoken of the need for a "strong pro-European alliance" in the European Parliament for this term. He said:

"The three largest groups in the European Parliament announced today their commitment to pro-European values and their intention to seek a political consensus at the heart of the European Union in order to respond in a coherent and united way to the multiple challenges that Europe's citizens are now facing in terms of employment and financial security."

Now the only thing you can say about pro-Europeanism when it comes to "employment and financial security", it that there should be some degree of EU involvement in these policy areas. The problem is that "pro-Europeanism" either amounts to the constitutional status quo, or a vague degree of increased integration. "Pro-Europeanism" in itself doesn't provide any ideological clue to what kind of policies a coalition will enact - what, for instance, is Europeanism's stance on the level of workers rights that's appropriate to an economy in recession? Verhofstadt has confused a unified cross-party pro-European alliance for some sort of Coalition from the Napoleonic Wars that, if it held together long enough, would put an end to the spectre of Euroscepticism. But it can't work like that.

Grand Coalitions aren't necessarily a bad thing; grand coalitions can make good governments, and they provide political stability in a country. But they need a common programme for government. In the EP, the executive is separate from the legislature so there's no need for a fixed or agreed programme of government to provide stability. So this alliance is not strictly necessary on a long-term basis. Also, since the EP's say over constitutional matters is extremely limited, basing a coalition on what is essentially a non-issue - apart from non-binding reports and the occasional vote on treaties or enlargements - isn't exactly a strong foundation. The rhetoric of Pro-European unity will paper over the divisions on the practical issues that the EP has to deal with in its day-to-day life. It hardly helps the EP's image to have such an alliance - wouldn't it be better to project it as a mature arena for political debate that scrutinises legislation and the Commission well?

If Verhofstadt wants to win more hearts and minds to "pro-Europeanism", he needs to draw in the public to the Brussels Bubble and spark interest and participation in EP politics. An outwardly cosy coalition in control of Parliament won't do this. Political competition encourages participation and interest, so it shouldn't be suppressed. The alliance - which I suspect will be more rhetorical than real, except for important votes, such as the Commission President vote - will give credibility to the ECR's strange claim to be the "first real opposition". For several reasons, the ECR is just not that significant, and will probably collapse at some point. Open political competition will make party politics in the EP matter more and if this perception increases among the public, then it would be more of a threat to the ECR than attempts to marginalise them. After all, the ECR are already having difficulties maintaining coherence, and it's only their first day!

It's also bad politics for ALDE. Ruling out coalitions on an issue-by-issue basis ties the hands of the EPP, since the only other option it has is a coalition with PASD or PASD and ALDE. This weakens ALDE's position as the EPP and PASD can do deals without ALDE's input. While it strengthens the hand of the PASD when it comes to coalition politics, in terms of electoral politics it will mean that they are not playing the oppositional role well or positioning themselves properly for the next elections.

Finally, this line of politics already goes against what ALDE and the PASD want - Barroso has used this line of reasoning before to try and brush away calls for presenting a programme for the next 5 years and to downplay the significance of the lack of a contest for his post. He said:

"I am in favour of a political Europe, but I am against partisan political confrontation in Europe. If we are a supra-national reality, we need to be supra-partisan politicians. ...I am against political parties’ artificial dramatisation... We must talk about Europe positively, because what most encourages eurosceptics in times of crisis is the pessimism of pro-Europeans."

Surely the worst thing "pro-Europeanism" could do is adopt the politics of Barroso?

Guy Verhofstadt becomes leader of ALDE

Guy Verhofstadt has become leader of the Liberal group, ALDE, in an unopposed contest after UK MEP Diane Wallis dropped out of the race at the last minute. ALDE is the third largest group in the European Parliament after the EPP and PASD.

Politically it means that if he decides to challenge Barroso for the Commission Presidency (it's unlikely since he would need the support of the EPP, and the - even less likely - support (or acquiescence) of the Council to manage it) he may have a stronger base in the ALDE and would be part of the Presidents of the EP who will decide on whether or not to put Barroso's second term to the vote in July. This is all a big stretch, though, but if the Commission Presidency vote is delayed to the autumn, then Barroso's candidature enters dangerous waters and it would give any Parliamentary challenger time to gather support.

At this point, and even if the vote is deferred, the most probable scenario is that Barroso will be re-appointed, and the Liberals or the PASD will win a half-term of the European Parliament Presidency.

It will be interesting to see how Verhofstadt will work in the EP (and if he'll use much of his group's speaking time. Will he try to make the Liberals a more coherent group, and will he work towards a coherent European campaign for the next elections (though it should be noted that ALDE consists of 2 Europarties), and how would he go about it?

The Battle for the Commission Presidency

It seems that there could be a contest for the office of President of the European Commission, whether the Swedes like it or not. It's not that Barroso is particularly loved by the Swedes or that he would be an asset to the EU as Commission President with a renewed mandate, but that Council wrangling could undermine the effectiveness of the Swedish European Council presidency and generally make life harder for everyone.


However, there's news that ALDE, the Greens and the PES are considering proposing the Liberal Guy Verhofstadt has stirred some debate on the EU Blogosphere (see Stephen Spillane, Julien Frisch and Jon Worth).

Does Verhofstadt have much chance? Stephen has pointed out that the Traffic Light Coalition of Socialists, Liberals and Greens only has 294 seats, which is well short of the majority required, 369. There's also the problem that the coalition would be hard to maintain - especially since in order for Verhofstadt to have any chance, the appointment of the Commission President needs to be delayed. The cohesiveness of each group is questionable: the PES have 41 votes whose national parties back Barroso, and the PES as a party has little power to wield over these MEPs. The Liberals may be split in opposing Barroso, and the temptation of Commission portfolios could outweigh the desire to have one of their own heading the Commission - a temptation that is likely to increase in force as time drags on and the weakness of the coalition becomes more apparent. The Greens are the most cohesive group here.

Attracting the support of the Left (seats: 32) would bring the coalition to 326 - still short. The Left would be a fickle friend, however, as if they do support Verhofstadt, it will be in the sense of voting for the "lesser of two evils". The Eurosceptic strains among the GUE-NGL make Verhofstadt an unattractive candidate in a sense, and the Left may not be united in any pro-Verhofstadt coalition.

The No Group MEPs are unlikely to support a Commission President with such open federalist opinions - indeed the presence of such a candidate could move them into the pro-Barroso coalition.

It will be harder to justify the delay with the right scoring a convincing victory in the EP, and Jon Worth is right to point out that a clear result should mean that there's a clear winner in Presidency terms. Verhofstadt also needs the support of the Council. Barroso has been campaigning for re-election for a while now (a campaign which undermined the relevance of the European Parliament), and Verhofstadt hasn't been campaigning (openly, at any rate) for Council support.

The Pro-Barroso coalition, if you count the EPP, UEN and future EC MEPs together, equals 333 seats, also short of the 369 mark, but bigger than the anti-Barroso coalition. However, if you add in the possible-PES-rebel-MEPs, you get 374.

And that's not counting how the InDem and other No Group votes could fall.

This opens up a few political calculations. Should the Liberals risk an alliance with a disparate coalition that could collapse? It would be risking Commission influence to bag the top job, but is its own membership - and that of the PES's - cohesive enough not to split and betray the party leadership's plans? Should they align with the PES to increase the value of their votes, then switch to the Barroso side to gain more influence? How will this political gambling affect their position in the political playing field for the next 5 years?

Similar calculations apply to the PES too - is it better to buy influence at Commission level or risk damaging relations with the biggest group and other group relations for a bigger payoff? The next five years will be difficult for the PES - could a failure now make it worse?

A factor I've left out until now is Barroso himself (well, he's left himself and the Commission out of important decisions before, so it's not that big of an oversight). His frankly insane and PR-insensitive comments that:

"...I am against partisan political confrontation in Europe. If we are a supra-national reality, we need to be supra-partisan politicians."

...and refusal to set out a term timetable for the EP he wants to elect him:

"I am against political parties’ artificial dramatisation...We must talk about Europe positively, because what most encourages eurosceptics in times of crisis is the pessimism of pro-Europeans."

...is just counter-productive. He's against open political contests? Hello - did you want a proper EP election or not?! You can't have politics or political choice without a political contest. To elect him without a contest - even at this late stage - would be damaging to the EP groups and to the EP, since it denies their true relevance and potential. And who will vote next time?

The refusal to submit a programme/timetable for government is a similarly callous disregard for the European Parliament. His ineptitude may yet turn EP allies against him.

Still, I predict that Barroso will secure a second term. If not him, it will be a compromise candidate and not Verhofstadt. Whoever it is, there needs to be a passionate and open debate and contest in the European Parliament. It is unlikely and hard to achieve given the coalitions involved - but if the EP can't attract interest now, when appointing the next executive, then when can it?