Barroso should keep his eye on a guiding star

Commission president should take care that he does not do lasting damage to the principle of the single market.

Pragmatism or principle? It is a constant dilemma for the European Commission. Is the Commission’s role to do what it can, or to propose what is right? For José Manuel Barroso, the question has been a constant since 2004. The muttering that he has kow-towed to the national governments – particularly to the big three – has been persistent. To the question whether the Commission should push at the boundaries of what is politically achievable, Barroso’s behaviour seemed to answer that it should stay in step with the Council of Ministers. In doing so, his detractors claimed, he was failing in his duty as the guardian of the Community interest.

Perhaps it was only to be expected that those accusations were particularly strong when Barroso was seeking re-appointment for a second term. But those who criticised the Commission president for being too respectful of the national governments were hoping that once re-appointed he might prove more independent. There has been little sign of such a change yet.

However, what has changed since Barroso’s re-appointment is the arrival of a permanent president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. And undeniably Van Rompuy has cramped Barroso’s style. There is now an alternative permanent presence in Brussels that is seeking to shape the EU’s agenda. While in theory the right of legislative initiative, in most subject areas, still resides exclusively with the Commission, Van Rompuy has shown that he can make the running, and Barroso has suffered by comparison. Our analysis of how the rules of economic governance are being re-shaped (Pages 10-11) shows how the Commission has been outmanoeuvred by Van Rompuy and the national governments.

Barroso has argued consistently that he wants to be judged by results. The Commission has, he implies, to compromise on principle to get those results, making concessions, if necessary, to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

And it is true that over the years some of the most effective commissioners have been those with a finely tuned sense of where to pitch a legislative proposal so that it could attract the necessary political support from ministers and MEPs.

But although a willingness to compromise is essential to the Commission, it also needs a firm sense of where the boundaries are. At what point does a compromise become too great a concession? What are the enduring principles that cannot be cast aside?

Over the past two decades, an attachment to the European single market has been a guiding star for the Commission. Successive commissioners have stoutly defended the single market, with the help (usually) of the European courts. Frits Bolkestein, the commissioner for the single market in 1999-2004, was firmly on the side of principle rather than pragmatism. His predecessor, Mario Monti, was almost as firm, if less belligerent. It is worth recalling that Monti recently drafted a report on the future of the single market, commissioned by Barroso at a moment when perhaps he recognised that pressure on the single market was particular acute, as recession encouraged calls for protectionism and national self-interest.

Now consider two contrasting issues that are about to come before the college of European commissioners, each of which raises that dilemma of pragmatism and principle. The first is whether to propose a common approach on carbon tax. The pragmatic approach would be to avoid a fight with the member states over taxation. But Algirdas Šemeta, the European commissioner for taxation, believes that the principle of a minimum rate of tax is worth fighting for, on the grounds that the single market should not be distorted. The second issue is whether to allow the member states to decide a differentiated approach on cultivating GM crops. Should the principle of a single market be sacrificed because the current regulatory regime is not working smoothly, with member states consistently deadlocked? John Dalli, the commissioner for health and consumer protection, appears to believe so.

Both issues are highly emotive and politically complex. But Barroso, pragmatic as he often is, should take care that he does not do lasting damage to the principle of the single market, which is worth preserving.

Click Here: Putters