EU leaders may opt to keep a familiar hand on the tiller to steer through raft of reforms

Date: 18/06/1998

Speculation about who will be the next president of the European Commission has started earlier than usual as the scale of the task facing the Union to prepare for enlargement sinks in. Rory Watson reports

A FEW months ago, the idea would have been unthinkable. But now it is being quietly floated as thoughts turn to the identity of the next president of the European Commission.

It runs like this. The current incumbent Jacques Santer would not automatically step down in January 2000 at the end of his five-year mandate, but would instead be asked by EU leaders to stay on for a further two years.

This scenario is the latest twist in the ritual game of 'Select the President', which has begun earlier than usual this time round.

Former Commission President Jacques Delors has already suggested that the appointment, to be made by EU leaders in exactly one year's time, should be directly linked to the 1999 European elections as a way of increasing the post's legitimacy and tackling voter apathy.

Observers who favour the Santer scenario see a certain logic in it. Between 2000 and 2002, the Union will be in a crucial phase: implementing regional, agricultural and social reforms, completing the final change-over to the single currency and finalising the enlargement negotiations. Better a familiar hand on the tiller than a new one, they say.

A shortened term would have the additional advantage of enabling the Union to introduce any institutional changes, including a reduction in the number of Commissioners, agreed at a future Intergovernmental Conference with the minimum of difficulty.

If agreement could be reached and ratified before the end of 2001, then the new slimline Commission could operate from the following year instead of waiting until 2005.

In their recent joint letter to British Premier Tony Blair, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and French President Jacques Chirac clearly put "the institutional reforms which were envisaged in Amsterdam and on which agreement should be reached before the forthcoming enlargement" on the table.

"We should therefore agree on a timetable," they added. "The appointment of a new European Commission by the beginning of the year 2000 and the approaching enlargement of the Union are further important landmarks serving this purpose. At the Vienna European Council in December 1998, we should intensify our discussion of these questions and if possible draw initial conclusions."

If the idea of a special two-year Commission is to be a runner, support for the concept will certainly have to be canvassed in the coming months.

Santer has just turned 61, so age would not be a barrier to his staying on. If EU leaders took to the idea, the former Luxembourg premier, who was reluctant to give up his country's leadership in 1994 in favour of the Commission presidency, would be unlikely to reject it.

"He has always said he would not be a candidate. I am sure he would not push for it, but equally sure he would not say no," explains one of Santer's closest confidants. "His view is that this is not the sort of thing you say no to."

One problem with this scenario, however, is that it is unclear whether all 20 existing Commissioners would be reappointed for the two-year term, or just the president.

The first option raises legal difficulties. While the 1993 Commission was appointed for just two years to bring its cycle into line with the five-year life of the European Parliament, that exception was specifically foreseen in the Maastricht Treaty.

Under the second, Santer would be doing what has already been dubbed 'a Duisenberg' by accepting another formal treaty mandate, but agreeing to step down early.

Given the furore and bad taste which surrounded Duisenberg's appointment as the European Central Bank president under such a formula, there would certainly be great reluctance to employ it again.

Such a strategy would also place Santer's successor as president in a weak position, coming into office after his colleagues had been in situ for two years. He would have had no say over the original distribution of portfolios and, although armed with the power to do so by the Amsterdam Treaty, would be unlikely to impose a reshuffle of responsibilities.

One big unknown is the view of the Parliament. The Amsterdam Treaty turns MEPs' de facto political power to reject the nominee for Commission president into a de jure right to block the appointment.

WHETHER they would endorse a two-year term and break the link between the five-year cycles of Commission and parliamentary mandates is unclear.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that MEPs are taken with Delors' idea of linking the selection of the new Commission president with next June's European elections, although they have not as yet officially given their opinion on it.

Under the scheme, each of the main political families would select its favoured candidate for the post.

Parties would campaign not just on their own manifesto programmes, but also behind the banner of their particular champion.

EU heads of state and government would still make the final appointment next June, but they would, in theory at least, be heavily influenced by the outcome of the elections. They would be expected to nominate the candidate representing the group with most pan-European votes.

Superficially, the idea is attractive. It would personalise and introduce some much-needed life into the campaign. It could increase voter interest and turnout. It would reinforce the link between the Parliament and the Commission, and the former's democratic control over the latter.

But it has one big drawback. Few see EU leaders voluntarily relinquishing the power of patronage over arguably the most important Union appointment - and certainly not to a fickle electorate.

A secondary obstacle is that next year's Euro-elections will take place between 10 and 13 June, while the EU summit will be held in Cologne a week earlier. But in the unlikely event of the idea winning support, there is little doubt the summit could be held later in the month.

As they weigh up the possible options, Union leaders will also be conscious of the need to avoid a repeat of the fiasco of four years ago when they left an acrimonious Corfu summit unable to agree on a successor to Jacques Delors.

On that occasion, the then British Prime Minister John Major, thwarted in his attempts to win support for his Dutch counterpart Ruud Lubbers, was the only leader to blackball Belgian Premier Jean-Luc Dehaene on the grounds that he was too much of a federalist.

In scenes which at times resembled the plot of a Feydeau farce, a fleet of official cars ferried prime ministers between their hotels and the conference centre late into the night as negotiations broke down, were kick-started back into life and then finally collapsed.

The arguments over Duisenberg's appointment have merely reinforced the point. But veteran observers of the EU scene are philosophical about the possibility that history might repeat itself. "As long as you need unanimity for such decisions, you cannot exclude a mess. You just need one lunatic to block things," says one.

Another significant factor will be the inevitable emphasis on power-sharing. After a Christian Democrat from a small northern European country, the presidency pendulum could be expected to swing to a Socialist from a southern member state.

It is this logic which is fuelling speculation about the intentions of former Spanish Premier Felipe González. But equally, two of the largest founder members of the Union, Germany and Italy, have not had their nationals in the presidency slot since 1967 and 1973 respectively, and may feel their time has come again.

Nor is the Commission presidency treated in isolation from other top international posts.

As EU leaders carefully share out influential appointments between different nationalities, they are careful not to give too many to any one member state. This is yet another reason for them to keep the decision firmly in their hands.

Major feature on speculation as to who will be the next EU Commission President.