h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In that it is difficult to describe, you probably wouldn't design it exactly the same way if you had to start again, yet is surprisingly effective.

I think your article is a good effort at describing something which is hideously complex. In political terms the Commission is in between the executive of a federation or confederation, and a secretariat (like the secretariat of the OECD or the OSCE, something which acts when its members ask it to). It's neither fish nor fowl. But it has stood the test of time for nearly 50 years.

A few small points - the Commission has a fair bit of influence on the legislative process - in the negotiation of legislation, if the member states want to amend a legislative proposal they need to do so unanimously if they do not have the agreement of the Commission, whereas a qualified majority will suffice if the Commission is in agreement. The Commission can in theory withdraw its proposal if it gets amended beyond all recognition or turned into something other than its original purpose. There are some other ways that the Commission has power in the legislative process, but it all gets very complex.

In your paragraph on accountability you need to mention that the Parliament can vote to dismiss the Commission - indeed it was the threat of this that led the Santer Commission to resign in 1999. Also on the democracy issue, some people in the Convention on revising the treaties which has recently started would like the President of the Commission to be directly elected. Others say this would destabilise the institutional balance.

I think it is fair to say that the Commission, although a collegiate body, is very dependent on its President. Delors and Hallstein were strong Presidents who had a clear vision of what was required and could face down a Member State if required. Without strong leadership, the Commission can take an age to come to an agreement internally on issues, as the Commissioners argue on policy issues. A good example of this at the moment is the reform of the common fisheries policy - do we look after the fish or the fishermen? When the proposal comes forward in a few weeks, we will see who won...

There is quite a bit more to say on how the Commission operates, but it will only make your entry too long, so I'll leave it there.

Sprout

how would you feel about the President of the E.U. commision being directly elected

On the whole I am not in favour.

If the President of the Commission were to be directly elected, they would have to run a political campaign, right or left wing and would then implement that.

At the moment one of the good things about the Commission is that it is neutral (more or less) in terms of party political terms. We shouldn't lose that.

Also if they were directly elected, I think it would shift the power balance strangely - not quite sure how it would work out, but you could get even worse power struggles between Commission and member states than we do already.

I might go for the President of the Commission being nominated by the European Parliament though - that would give them more democratic legitimacy, but without changing the whole nature of their role.

Sprout

I just find it odd that the head of the Executive branch of European government is appointed by what amounts to an unaccountable quango.

I'd like to see the President Elected ( and be responsible for appointing the commission (with certain safeguards to ensure no one nation was over represented)).

The Parliament responsible for all legislative decisions

and the Council o Ministers left to deal with constitutional matters.

how would you feel about such a system ?

Your suggestion would definitely be a more coherent system - effectively this would be a genuine European federal government. Personally I would go for it on one condition - that we apply subsidiarity much more rigorously and only do at the European level what makes sense, with everything else going down to national or regional governments.

In the system you describe the Council could then play the role of the Bundesrat in the German federal system, acting as a safeguard and making sure that proposals don't unfairly impact on one member state or another.

At the moment it strikes me that some things that should definitely be done at the European level aren't or are only done tentatively(asylum policy or environmental taxation for example) On the other side of the coin we have funds for films at a European level and a zoos Directive... In my view there is no call for European policies on such kind of issues.

The other problem is that legislation gets too detailed at the European level. Time after time the Commission puts forward Directives which set out the framework for legislation, as a Directive is supposed to do, and then the Parliament starts writing in every detail, and covering every eventuality. This is how legislation gets expensive for business.

I'm not sure whether we will move nearer to a system like the one you propose with the current discussion in the Convention. Firstly it's difficult to say whether there is much demand for it at the moment. Secondly can we make such a system work with ten new enlargement countries?

Sprout

one thing is certain, the current one will be under strain if enlargment takes place and nothing is done to change it.