Andrew Duff MEP

European parliament faces legislative test

Half the members of the European parliament are new to the job. The reasons for such a big turnover need study, but the weakness of party politics at the European level is certainly one of them. Immature political parties cannot offer the prospect of a political career to MEPs. National politics offer greater temptation to those of less than certain European vocation.

The unstable membership of the European parliament risks impairing its legislative performance. Unlike most national parliaments, in the European parliament there is no legislative guillotine at the end of its five-year term. Much complex and sensitive draft legislation remains in the pipeline to be picked up when the new MEPs get back to law making in September - including proposals on financial regulation, telecoms, the single energy market, access to EU documents and a common asylum and immigration policy.

Discontinuity is accentuated because of the decision of the British and Czech conservatives to defect from the majority European People's Party in order to form a new nationalistic group. The centre of gravity in the new House has shifted rightwards. The chances of carrying social and environmental legislation are reduced. The ambition of the parliament to push for real common foreign and security policies is likewise weakened.

However, the first difficult decision to be encountered by the new MEPs is the approval of José Manuel Barroso for a second term as president of the European Commission. After clumsy mishandling of the issue by the outgoing Czech presidency of the European Council, Mr Barroso is finally to be formally nominated for the post. Under the terms of the Treaty of Nice currently in force, he needs a simple majority of the parliament to get his job back. He will command that simple majority, but there is a complication.

Whereas Mr Barroso's re-election starts under the Treaty of Nice it will end, all being well, under the Treaty of Lisbon. The final appointment of the new college of Commissioners has to wait until Lisbon has entered into force because only under Lisbon can a decision be taken to maintain the size of the college at one Commissioner per member state. Keeping one Commissioner of each nationality is the key concession granted to the Irish government as the price for their holding a second referendum to ratify the Treaty.

The catch is that Lisbon determines that the Commission president needs not a simple but an absolute majority of the House, that is, at least 369 out of the 736 MEPs. Mr Barroso's own group, the EPP, can only deliver him a maximum of 264 votes. The far left, far right and the Greens will vote against him. So the Barroso camp needs to find a lot of support from within the socialist and liberal groups (with 183 and 84 MEPs respectively). That is why the leadership of those two groups has caused the vote on Mr Barroso to be postponed from July until September. In the interim, Mr Barroso needs to campaign for his job by setting out clear political priorities for his second five year term that will meet some of the demands of his critics and win over sceptics.

Mr Barroso's campaign is not easy but it is very important. One of the main criticisms of his first term, whether justified or not, is that he failed on occasion to stand up to the European Council. If he cannot swing an absolute majority of the parliament behind him now, his political credibility with the heads of government will be further dished.

And it is not just the prime ministers with whom the new president of the Commission will have to contend. Once Lisbon is in force he will have a very powerful vice-president of the Commission in charge of the Union's common foreign and security policy (and chairing the Council of Ministers of foreign affairs). Mr Barroso will also be competing with a new 'permanent' president of the European Council, to replace the series of assorted prime ministers on their six-month stint. If ever there was a time for the Commission president to be strong, this is it.

Nobody doubts the scale of the challenges of the autumn agenda, especially on the financial and economic crisis and the Copenhagen climate change talks. So a longer delay in the Barroso vote, proposed by some, until October (or beyond) would be unwise. Any picture of disarray in the union would be a feast not only to the Irish anti-treaty campaigners but also to the Czechs who face parliamentary elections on 9-10 October in which victory for President Klaus's supporters could once again jeopardise the fate of the Lisbon treaty.

But a delay until 15 September is not a scandal. Rather, it maximises the chance of emerging with a more powerful Barroso II Commission. With his mandate refreshed, Mr Barroso will be able to join the platform of the pro-Lisbon reformers during the last fortnight of the Irish referendum campaign. He will be in a good position to shape the programme of the new college and, indeed, to influence the pick of its members (including that of the key post of Vice-President/Foreign Minister). And the new parliament will have demonstrably asserted that it is not a pushover.

Whether all this will rejoice the hearts or engage the minds of the European Union's reluctant electors is another matter altogether. The next, and greatest, test of public opinion is Irish.

Saving the European Union: the logic of the Lisbon treaty by Andrew Duff is now available at www.shoehornbooks.com/SavingtheEU