Commissioners or Ambassadors?

José M. de Areilza

January 8, 2007

Vicepresident Günter Verhuegen recent question “why do small Member States need a Commissioner each, after all?” can be read in a number of ways. It is a sign that old timers think that the Commission needs urgent reform. With the arrival of Bulgaria and Romania, it is clear that the number of Commissioners should be reduced, there are not 27 interesting portfolios to go around, it is very difficult to manage meetings with 27 politicians, all with different agendas, and it is impossible to create a shared institutional identity and mission in such a large group. Verhuegen remarks also show that some do not think much of the deal reached at Nice IGC in 2000, by which small countries were compensated in the Commission for their loss of voting power in the Council of Ministers.

But Verhuegen undiplomatic comments specially reveal that Germany is flexing its muscles in the debate on institutional reform, not caring too much about others’ feelings. The problem with his way of thinking, let alone his way of presenting his thoughts, is twofold. First, it is an open acknowledgement that in the future the European Commission could become something along the lines of a COREPER III, with Commissioners openly acting as representatives of national governments. But this radical departure would actually lead to more equality among Commissioners-Ambassadors, not less, in the name of the unsacred principle of “one Commissioner per Member State”. Secondly, his understanding of Commissioners as Representatives is a final blow to the original European Community model of formal independence of the Commission and the never resolved political tension between appointment (and re-appointment) by national governments and the duty to serve and advance the European interests, a model that has helped European integration stay its course.