Barroso's Green Grilling

Today Barroso was grilled by the Liberals and the Greens. The Greens broadcast their hearing live on their website (from 16:30-18:30 Brussels time). I watched most of it, but the connection wasn't great, and at time the speakers' voices were echoed. It was also untranslated, so those who couldn't speak English, German or (especially) French would have been at a disadvantage; but it was good to see a live hearing.

[Note: My bad French the bad connection means that I may end up leaving some stuff out, so update me in the comments if you notice anything]

Barroso didn't give much away that he didn't say in his Political Guidelines for the next Commission (and that didn't reveal anything new either), but it was useful to see Barroso answering questions under some pressure (there were several shouting matches in French; a language in which Barroso speaks a lot more passionately than in English).

The main topic was, of course, the environment. Questions were raised over agriculture policy (particularlly on GM foods and the question of restrictions on protein production), over the Commission's commitment to tackle climate change and to ensure that the EU remains a leader in this area (especially since Japan unilaterally decided to cut emissions by 25%) and on global climate deals. Barroso's answers reflected how much he values the single market and liberalised trade (as his answers throughout did). He repeated his policy that GM foods remain a national decision, and he defended the EU's climate policy, saying that Japan had not yet legislated for that promise (the promise was made by the new incoming government). He also stressed the value of consensus, and that the role of the Commission President was to find consensus over issues - member states with different main energy sources and policies needed to be brought together. I've some sympathy for the last point, but Barroso's last 5 years have hardly come across as ambitious either. He also repeated his idea of a "climate test" for Commission policies and proposals, to ensure that they would be in line with the policy on climate change.

An excellent question was raised over the Commission's record of enforcing the correct application of environmental law that already exists. Hoever, to me the anser to this seemed to get lost in his reply to the questions generally (3 questions would be asked each time before he would answer).

Poverty and social policy came up as well. Barroso's stance on market liberalisation as characterised as the "Death of Social Europe" at one point (at least, that what I picked up - it was in French). On poverty, Barroso spoke about using the Social Fund, but also said that some states had asserted subsidiarity in some cases to prevent EU involvement in those areas. On social Europe, he said he wanted to introduce legislation on posted workers to plug the gap in the single market, but that he'd ensure that social rights are protected - Barroso pointed to the Charater of Fundamental Rights and asserted that these rights would be ensured generally.

The European Free Alliance (the regionalist wing of the group) asked a few questions as well; on the EU supporting regional languages financially as co-official in the EU institutions (if I've remembered that correctly), and on the inclusion of regions in decision-making. Barroso gave some vague statement of support for non-official languages and said that he supported regionalism, but that it was up to the member states in the Council to decide how much input their regions have.

On Human Rights, the Greens wanted more action on the issue of CIA rendition flights and for human rights to be linked with trade agreements more. Barroso said that he give political support to the cause of human rights by speaking out and by questioning leaders like Putin on it, but he rejected the idea of linking human rights ith trade too closely as impractical. He pointed to his the directive on non-discrimination in his first term as proof of his commitment to human rights (saying that it had faced some opposition in the EP), and said his next Commission would have a Commissioner with a portfolio on human rights.

Throughout the hearing, Barroso's belief in market liberalisation was clear, but so was a strange view on the role of the Commission. "Consensus" came up again and again: he tried to characterise the Commission as a bastion of unpolitical consensus, and accussed the Greens of excluding themselves from the "European Consensus". The denial of normal politics and replacing it with a grand European Alliance is simply the wrong strategy, even for its own cause. After a rambling speech on consensual Commissions and pro-European alliances, Barroso tried to characterise himself as not being conservative, but instead as a centre-right reformer. To which came the reply from an off-screen Green - and my favourite line of the hearing - "Would you not rather the support of the Greens instead of the support of the conservative group?".

I've a feeling that Barroso is more the ECR's candidate than the EPP's...



My Tweets:

Barroso is being questioned by the Greens - you can watch it live now: http://bit.ly/1gHAdm (it's 45min in) #eu

Barroso accuses Greens of excluding themselves from the European consensus #eu

Barroso and Red Danny shouting over each other. Barroso sounds more passionate in French (!) #eu #eugreenhearing

Barroso trying to defend the idea of an unpartisan Commission. And unpolitical Commission? #eu #eugreenhearing

"Death of Social Europe" - more criticism of #Barroso's market-focus and of social rhetoric as election rhetoric #eugreenhearing #eu

#Barroso talking about a "climate test" for all #Commission proposals. #eu #eugreenhearing

Criticising #Barroso over ensuring the application of #eu environmental law. #eugreenhearing

Consensus must be #Barroso's favourite word. Getting coal-using countries on board is an issue #eu #eugreenhearing

#Barroso blames member states using subsidiarity against poverty-fighting measures #eu #eugreenhearing

#Barroso wants to intro legislation on posted workers that extends market freedom, but says social rights will be protected #eu #hearing

I wonder if the EFA wing will attack #Barroso for his slap on the effect of subsidiarity? #eu #eugreenhearing

EFA issues: will #eu financially support the co-official languages in the EU & representation of regions in decision-making #eugreenhearing

#Barroso: regions' participation is supported, but it's member states' decision #eu #eugreenhearing

#Barroso's been asked if he'll limit protein production; and if agricult. policy is liberalisation & export orientated #eu #eugreenhearing

Some anger over the different treatment of the epot of GM foods #eu #eugreenhearing

It must be annoying having Danny sit right next to you and for him to be shouting that loud #eu #eugreenhearing

Question: should there be a Human Rights Commissioner & more HR in trade deals? #eu #eugreenhearing #Barroso

Greens pushing for more action over the CIA rendition flights & Guantamino #Barroso #eu #eugreenhearing

#Barroso: points to horizontal non-discrim. directive against some EP opposition. Next #Commission will have a HR Commissioner #eu

#Barroso: impossible to subordinate trade to HR concerns #eu #eugreehearing

#Barroso: integration of Africa in global trade will aid development #eu #eugreenhearing

#Danny ends ith a friendly question on Iraq. #Barroso #eu #eugreenhearing

Question time's over, and #Barroso's out like a shot! #eu #eugreenhearing Spent last 2 hrs wanting to get away from Danny, no doubt.

Poor Poul

It's becoming very hard not to feel sorry for PES leader Poul Nyrup Rasmussen:* unable to run a candidate for the Commission Presidency (which will damage the PES's chances in June), he's been reduced to impotently hinting that he has someone in mind. Meanwhile, the Greens are calling for a Red-Green coalition, with an open door for others to join, and the Liberals whinge from the sidelines that the PES isn't coherent enough or credible enough to put forward a candidate.

At the same time, there's no guarantee that the Liberals will support an anti-Barroso. Even if the PES and Greens-EFA do well enough in June, the coalition needs to be large to stand up to the EPP and the Council. Given the internal party splits in the PES (UK's Labour will do badly in the election, but with Spain and Germany, it makes up the (at least potential) core of PES in the EP), along with the strong left-right differences within the Liberals (contrast the UK's LibDems with Germany's FDP), any coalition must be big and coherent enough to withstand both its internal party splits and to wage a strong campaign against the EPP and the Council. The PES really need a plurality in the EP here, since it's unlikely that they'll be able to succeed against the Council if the Council can point to the EPP as the winners.

Of course, the EPP have some of their own problems, with the UK Conservatives breaking away from them (well, away from the EPP-aligned ED anyway), but this is unlikely to dilute centre-right support for Barroso in the EP.

I wonder if the PES might loose a few seats to the Greens, since in several countries the PES parties are either highly unpopular (UK), or have faced coherence and credibility problems (Germany and France). In Germany, the Greens tend to be the natural allies of the SPD, and their alignment in the run up to the September federal elections may further boost the credibility of the Greens among dissatisfied SPD voters who don't want to vote for the hard left. I doubt the Green's calls for EP coalition will boost their credibility much in the public's mind without an actual candidate to rally behind, but it may have a small effect. (On the other hand, a loss for the Greens has been predicted).

The PES are clinging on to the outside chance of a plurality or coalition, and have hit out against suggestions of appointing the new Commission President quickly after the new EP convenes. Nevertheless, we'll probably be left with the pitiful outcome of PES appeals for Barroso to become more socialist.



*(As ever, not to be confused with the innumerable other Rasmussens (ok, 2 others). Which makes a nice change for me, since Irish politicians with the same name are 99% likely to be related).

Will the European Parliament block Barroso's Plan?

Barroso's plan for €5 million of unspent EU budget funds in energy projects, etc, could be voted down in the EP, Claude Turmes told EurActiv. It was never exactly a brilliant plan, although to be fair to Barroso, he's never claimed to be imaginative or competent enough to come up with one in the first place (See comments).

I don't know how viable or effective the idea of pumping it into the EIB is, but if it can be done, I do like the idea of using it to generate more money to help the member states.

Most of all, I'd like to see more initiative from the EP on this matter - as well as running candidates for Commission President in the elections.

Or am I misguided on the practicality of the Commission being more assertive and bold in its plans during the economic crisis? Is it now institutionally and politically impossible for the Commission to show leadership?

(In other news: the Commission and Irish officials will meet to decide how the Commission can help in the Lisbon debate. Is it hoping that nobody says anything stupid too much to hope for?)