Radu Magdin

2014 is the year of at least two European battles of great internal impact: on the one hand, the European Parliament elections and, on the other hand, the appointment of a new Commissioner. The two battles are related and both are very important for Romania. Moreover, the two can potentially mark a decade of a Social-Democratic (S&D/ PES) come-back to Europe‘s driver‘s seat after 15 years of European People’s Party (EPP) domination.

Why do these two battles actually matter for Romania? Because depending on their outcome, we will know who initiates EU legislation (the case for the European Commission), as well as who amends it (the case for the European Parliament). At the moment, over 70% of the laws applicable in Romania and the other 27 EU Member States are products of the EU’s law-making mechanism.

In this article, we propose an analysis on who will become the President of the European Commission, as well as who will be appointed as Commissioner on behalf of Romania.

Schulz or Juncker

There are two people with a real chance to become the President of the European executive, namely the Social-Democrat Martin Schulz, the current President of the European Parliament, respectively Jean-Claude Juncker, representing the European People’s Party, former President of the Eurogroup and former long-term Prime-Minister of Luxembourg. The battle is tight because majorities look tight both in the European Parliament (where the S&D is leading according to certain opinion polls or shares the same position as the EPP, according to others) and in the European Council (where the EPP has 12 heads of states or government, in comparison with 10 for the S&D/PES). Both the European Parliament and the Council seek to have the final word when it comes to appointing the President of the Commission. The Council relies on the tradition so far, whereas the Parliament relies on the interpretation of article 17, paragraph 7 in the Lisbon Treaty, which states the fact that the European Parliament appoints the President of the European Commission on the basis of the European Council’s proposal and taking into account the results of European elections. Nonetheless, through personalisation and nomination of “engines” for the European electoral lists, the EP manages not only to raise the general interest in the European elections, but also to somehow force the Council’s hand.

What can really happen? The least probable scenario is that either the S&D or the EPP would win by a difference of 10-15 votes from its immediate adversary. In this case, Schulz and Juncker will become President of the European Commission, but subject to harsh negotiations: if the presidency of the European Commission goes to the S&D, then the EPP would strive to gain everything else they can: the Presidency of the EU (Van Rompuy’s current position) and even a full mandate, not one split in two as it is now, at the helm of the European Parliament. The EPP Group within the EP is more likely to follow the latter interest, rather than the Council presidential position.

The most probable scenario is a tight battle between the two biggest political families, held up to the last MEP, which implies a growing negotiation power for the parties  wishing to adhere to the EPP – we‘ll see if it will be the case for the Romanian National Liberal Party. Opinion polls are not always the most representative tools, as there are 28 national variables to be taken into account. If the results turn out to be nip-and-tuck, then most probably the EPP will do anything to keep the presidency of the European Commission in order to keep drawing the general lines of the European game; this would also be a sign that the EPP managed, last minute, to stop S&D‘s European momentum in “leading Europe”.

The EC President game is influenced by other factors as well, which might seem irrelevant from the outside, but are actually very important for those who are familiar with how the “system” works. These factors result from each candidate‘s advantages and disadvantages. Schulz is a charismatic and engaged political operator, polarising and being able to establish a clear-cut political direction within the European Commission. This might not appeal to the EC “system” or the Council – Angela Merkel would see another German with high visibility at European level (and probably one with a national political agenda in mind afterwards); or to those who believe that precedents must be avoided (that one shall not hold the presidency of the EC immediately after the one of the EP). Juncker is less charismatic and rather a skilled backstage negotiator, an asset which matches with the interests of the European Commission’s inner mechanisms and of the Council‘s leaders; moreover, he is recommended by his experience in the Euro-group. After being a long-term Prime Minister, Juncker has no further domestic objective to fulfill. Coming from a small country, there is a lower risk to be perceived as a threat – if Schulz gets the EC seat, Germany might seem almighty in Europe, also formally, not just informally.

What’s in it for Romania? Romania would be a winner regardless of the finality of the “battle”, if it is indeed ready for negotiations. Both Schulz and Juncker have previously shown a friendly attitude towards Romania. Schulz has visited us more often, the fact that there is a coincidence between his political family and the Romanian Prime Minister’s one being an important advantage. Moreover, since the Romanian Social-Democratic Party, holding the executive power, will appoint the European Commissioner this autumn, it is in Schulz’s best interest to support a Romanian Social-Democratic colleague for a good portfolio in the EC. This doesn’t mean that Juncker wouldn’t be of any help, even though the fact that he is EPP and Victor Ponta is S&D. Furthermore, the “Basescu” factor shall be taken into consideration once again with this new nomination (as he has put his stamp on the previous nomination cases: Orban and Ciolos). However, being in the last two or three months of his presidential mandate (and certainly unable to renew it like it happened in 2009), he is less probable to block the nomination and more likely to pronounce himself in favour of one less hostile PSD candidate.

What part would Romania play? First of all, Schulz hopes that the PSD will succeed in gaining more votes than all the EPP parties put together (PDL + UDMR + PMP + PNTCD + FC). This is not an unrealistic objective, as all the EPP members, except for the UDMR, are canibalizing each other while running on the same political corridor. Secondly, a categorical victory at the European Parliamentary elections for the PSD will lower President Basescu’s (EPP) practical influence and possibility of action within the European Council. However, Basescu has always proved to be an unpredictable character, thus surprises might come up especially in the context of a striking lack of dialogue between the “Victoria” and the “Cotroceni” Palaces regarding European affairs.

The Romanian Commissioner. History and current aspirations.

Before starting the discussion on a Romanian Commissioner, I suggest detaching for a moment from the person-oriented perspective and starting to think primarily about portfolios of national interest. People can come afterwards and match them. Currently, EC portfolios are: agriculture and rural development; climate action; competition; development; digital agenda; economic and monetary affairs; education, culture, multilingualism and youth; employment, social affairs and inclusion; energy; enlargement and European neighbourhood policy; environment; financial programming and budget; health and consumer policy; High Representative (for Foreign Affairs); home affairs; industry and entrepreneurship; internal market and services; international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis response; inter-institutional relations and administration; justice, fundamental rights and citizenship; maritime affairs and fisheries; regional policy; research, innovation and science; taxation, customs, statistics, audit and anti-fraud; trade; transport.

These portfolios might suffer minor, not fundamental changes. While aiming at a commissarial position, we should also consider its utility. Do we have a certain need to satisfy? Is there a certain field we have to stimulate (not to control – a Commissioner is not invested with unlimited powers, but is rather expected to promote proposals coming from the DGs he coordinates, while adding certain political, technical or national flavours)? Should we aim for a well-funded field (although, honestly, it’s not the Commissioner who sends the stacks of European money to one country or another – he can however lobby for more budgeting within the EC) or for one with influence? Should we go for a “present-oriented” portfolio (supervising implementation of previously-approved European legislation) or for one “future-oriented” (where we would initiate legislation and subsequently have negotiation power)?

Which portfolios would count as top-portfolios? In our opinion, these would be: agriculture and rural development; digital agenda; economic and monetary affairs; energy; enlargement and the European neighbourhood policy; environment; financial programming and budget; High Representative (for Foreign Affairs); industry and entrepreneurship; internal market and services; justice, fundamental rights and citizenship; regional policy; research, innovation and science; trade; transport.

This doesn’t mean that the portfolios dedicated, for example, to education, health or social affairs, are not theoretically important (these topics certainly are), but that an European Commissioner in these field has only the competence to coordinate national policies.

If we are to look thoroughly at influence in decision-making process: agriculture has been reformed (as a result of the Romanian Commissioner’s, Dacian Cioloș, actions), in the energy sector we are rather in a state of implementation after Oettinger‘s reforms, the budget for 2014-2020 is already negotiated and so on. Hot files in law-making for 2014-2019 will be in the fields of: digital agenda (where we do have interests regarding our IT industry – a possible candidate would be Dan Nica), the economic portfolios remain “hot” as the buzz of Eurozone and economic integration is still present (and only someone with a very strong background, such as Mihai Tanasescu, could compete for a position), the enlargement and the neighbourhood policy post-Crimea (where Mircea Geoana, enjoying international prestige, could compensate for the fact that, alongside Bulgaria, we have been a problematic child of EU enlargement), the environment (eventually coupled with climate action) will be put under pressure by the desire of EU re-industrialisation (Rovana Plumb is in poll-position due to her expertise). Moreover, at least for the love of the negotiation game, we should prepare candidates for research/ innovation (after all, this is the economy of the future), regional funds and transport (as we have deficiencies in the field); the portfolio on energy would also prove its utility because the implementation of the latest energy package is vital in the new geopolitical European context.

For Romania, it won’t be easy at all to obtain a good portfolio if we don’t pay careful attention to a few key-points: counterbalancing the argument that we have already held an important portfolio (agriculture – since we also had a completely insignificant one: the multilingualism), the coordination between institutional actors (especially between the Palaces), promoting the best negotiators – those on the spot (the Permanent Representation of Romania to the EU needs a key-position), the smart management of our presence in the international media (on and off the record briefings with foreign correspondents will gain ground), achieving key-coalitions (so that those who back us up for the portfolios we want will are confident they will enjoy advantages in case of Romanian leadership). If we don’t follow these points, we are  going to be less visible in the European game and even less influent in the backstage. While formally occupying the seventh position as voting and representation power in Europe, in practice we are going to draw away from it, if we do not act strategically.

Finally, we can understand the human aspect of the negotiations between the two Palaces –the Governmental and the Presidential one – (each of them should have someone enjoying support), but the combat between personalities shouldn’t keep us from remembering one thing: it is important to have someone proudly representing us in Brussels (although we know the theory: the Commissioner is neutral) and who is ready to fight for our interests in the college of Commissioners. However, in the absence of a key-portfolio providing law-making power or influence, Mr. or Mrs. Romanian Commissioner won’t have enough ammunition to actually help his/ her country of origin.

.