Challenges for the next European Commission

The European Union is still finding its way out of the economic crisis. But there is an acute awareness in Brussels, and in member state capitals, that EU institutions need structural changes. A new ‘big idea’ for Europe is required, in order to reinvigorate the EU.

Over the past couple of years, the European Commission has ordered several large-scale studies to define the societal, economic and international challenges that Europe will face in the near future. The next five years also mean the end of Europe’s 2020 goals, which forces the EU executive to draft a new roadmap for growth. On the international scene, world leaders will reassess their response to climate change and discuss a new framework for development, post-2015. Is the EU Commission, in its current form, ready to face these internal and external challenges?

In a series of interviews with Brussels’ top-level experts and opinion-makers conducted by the European news and policy site EurActive, one key observation sticks out: European political leaders must step out of their comfort zone and reassess the dogmas of their policymaking, in the search for new approaches to growth, global influence and the EU’s architecture.

For the first time, the EU executive will be led by a president that is elected by the European Parliament, in a new process following the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The rest of the members of the EU executive’s ‘College’ of Commissioners are selected by the member states individually, with many contenders currently in the running for the job.

Over the summer, these commissioners will be assigned portfolios in what is expected to be a difficult negotiation process between the EU Commission president and the member states. The new commissioners are then grilled by the EU Parliament in a series of plenary sessions to check their knowledge and ambitions related to the portfolio assigned to them.

The new European Commission is hoped to take office on November 1, even though this target date could shift due to the novel process of electing the EU executive’s president.

RESHAPING THE COMMISSION

As the European Union grew from a union of dozen countries to a bloc of 28 member states, the EU executive has expanded with each accession round. The Treaty of Lisbon adopted the idea to make the College of Commissioners smaller in numbers, increasing its efficiency.

The plan at the time of Lisbon was to downsize the EU executive to two-thirds of the number of member states. But EU leaders changed their mind at a European Council in May 2013, deciding that the next Commission will maintain 28 members: one for each member state, as before. “It has proven to be impossible to get the political agreement for countries to give up the principle [of one commissioner per country],” Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive of the European Policy Centre (EPC) wrote in his paper on the structure of the Commission.

“Still,” says Thomas Fischer, director of the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Brussels office, “the idea of having a number of fullfledged commissioners coordinating other, so-called ‘junior’ commissioners, remains.”

One idea is to ‘cluster’ broader policy fields such as economy or climate. Such super-portfolios would be dealt with by a vicepresident of the EU Commission, overseeing a number of ‘junior’ commissioners with a more narrow focus.

“Foreign affairs could serve as an example,” argues Steven Blockmans, senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). “The so-called RELEX-group gathers commissioners dealing with enlargement, neighbourhood policy and other related fields. The High Representative [for foreign affairs and security policy], Catherine Ashton, has the competence to preside this meeting, even if she did not take up on this.”

One position in particular is deemed suitable by EU pundits for such ‘clustering’: what some have dubbed an ‘ EU budget tsar’, who would coordinate commissioners for economic, budgetary and financial policies. Some have suggested that he or she could – like the High Representative for foreign affairs – chair the EU finance ministers’ meeting in the EU Council of EU ministers.

“But,” Fischer argues, “sometimes I wonder whether there is anybody who can truly tackle the requirements of such a [double-hatted] role – even physically. The working agenda is extremely tough.”

These ideas of reforming the executive have received support from MEPs and political groups but remains extremely sensitive for member states, which could see their national top job holder downgraded.

Bringing much-needed changes to the structure of the next Commission will fall on the shoulders of the Commission president, to be elected in July. But extensive changes will most likely be deferred by EU heads of state and government.

NEW GROWTH MODEL

EU Commission forecast has shown that not one EU country will be amongst the top eight economies in the world by 2050, if the ongoing shift of economic power persists. It illustrates the foremost challenge the next EU executive has on its plate. The economic crisis has ravaged Europe over the past five years and is yet to be overcome.

The EU’s main economic, social and political mission is that “we need a Europe that delivers: citizens want a Europe that thrives,” said Aart De Geus, president of the Bertelsmann Foundation, in a speech at the annual Brussels Think Tank Dialogue (BTTD).

Just last February, EU Commission vice-president Olli Rehn presented figures pointing at a slow economic recovery. The EU commissioner for economic and monetary affairs was quick to add: “This is not an invitation to be complacent. We need to stay on course of economic reform.”

Existing instruments to get member states out of the economic crisis, like the European Semester, have shown increasing attention to growth policies, rather than an austerity-driven approach. The incumbent EU Commission has grafted much of its initiatives for growth onto the Europe 2020 Strategy, launched in 2010: a plan for “smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” to steer the continent out of the crisis.

As the target date for these flagship objectives is 2020, it is up to the next Commission team to finish the job. But what is the state of play? The European Commission released a stock taking exercise of the process in March, which demonstrated the progress made on five objectives: - 75% of Europeans (20-64 years old) in employment; - 3% of GDP in research and development; - Cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, increase renewables to 20% of all energy; improve energy efficiency by 20%; - Bring school dropouts below 10% and increase the number of youngsters with tertiary education by 40%; and, - Ensure 20 mln fewer people in risk of poverty.

In recent years, Brussels clung to the Europe 2020 strategy of growth-oriented policy. “But,” Fischer argues, “the deficiency of this debate is that it is a lip service to this ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’. No one is really thinking about how to build a new growth model for Europe – one that is less focused on the GDP.”

The comment corresponds to an emerging debate amongst top economists on revisiting growth models. Respected scholars, such as the German professor Joseph Vogl and Czech thinker Tomas Sedlacek have rallied against politicians’ urge to keep an economic bloc’s GDP rate in constant increase.

Sedláãek explained his thoughts on growth: “We should be grateful when growth happens, but if it doesn’t, we should be able to survive. A crisis only comes because we think that we will explode as a civilisation when we don’t have growth.”

On social policy, experts argue the EU Commission could face important challenges in the areas of migration, education, training and income inequality, while other issues on the agenda include international trade, development goals and climate.