Somehow the parliamentary system seems to need these political parties – at national and European level – to end up with the directly elected parlamentarians.

Is it possible that a real government, accountable to the European Parliament, would have a better chance of securing adequate resources than a present style Commission dependent on handouts from national governments?

You are quite correct in that sense. The current economic and political conditions, as well as post admin-reform fatigue and a lack of administrative resources to cover the portfolio in 27 states, are eroding the Commission’s ability to do its job. The member states are largely responsible for this state of affairs.

But surely democracy in Europe should come through Parliamentary scrutiny of Commission proposals by directly elected representatives rather than political groupings being more active in proposing candidates for President of the Commission. In my mind it is the European Parliament that represents the people of Europe.

The role of the Commission is to build Europe i.e. implement the Treaties. I sincerely hope that it will never become an international secretariat like that of the UN. I have immense respect for the work and the people of the UN but it wouldn’t and couldn’t create the kind of European Union we expect from a professional, permanent and properly resourced Commission.

Might not the road towards secretariatdom and difficult conditions be two sides of the same coin?

Barroso-bashing: The ratification procedures and the choice of national referendums, as well as treaty amendments, have been in the hands of national governments. In this the Commission is made a scape-goat.

I also agree that real competing candidates are needed, but for that the European level parties have to start taking themselves and the citizens seriously.

I cannot see how this vision of the Commission becoming an international secretariat can be taken seriously. I can see some weight in the argument that the Commission might be behaving that way in certain circumstances.

The Commission is unique in the world. No other international organisation has exclusive competencies that extend to suprantional law-making and enforcement. The Commission is obliged to defend the Treaties and to progress the objectives therein regardless of national positions. As far as I know, and please correct me if I’m wrong, there is no mechanism to undo or reverse that unique position. What can a Commission President do to change that?

I am happy to defend the Commission and Barroso because I think they are making good progress under difficult conditions. Bringing Europol into the Community was a shrewd move. Europol was doing pretty well beforehand but it is a wasteful dupication to extend Community competence into Justice and Home Affairs whilst Europol remains an intergovernmental organism on the sidelines?

I am not an apologist for everything theCommission and Barroso do. I just think that a campaign in favour of a particular candidate would be infinitely better than Barroso bashing, which I think gives succour to those who would like to dismantle Europe. Thelatter perform an important function as they force us to reiterate and make the case for Europe on a daily basis. Anyone but Barroso, by definition, includes some of these anti-Europe characters whom, I’m sure, none of us really wishes to see at the head of the Commission.

So whom should that elusive candidate be in these tough times for Europe? I would rather have Barroso for another term and I think the most relevant development in the real world is that the major political parties have come to the same conclusion.

http://euractiv.blogactiv.eu/2008/12/02/votewatcheu-new-online-tool-to-monitor-eu-decision-makers/

I may have expressed my opinions less than clearly, but I don’t subscribe to calling Barroso rubbish or prefering anyone as long as it isn’t he.

This does not mean that I am uncritical of the present Commission or Barroso, but some of the sins ascribed to him rightfully belong among the governments convened in the Council and the European Council.

I have written on my own blog that even if Barroso happened to be the best Commission President ever, it is an unhealthy situation that the European political parties fail in their most basic mission: to present alternatives to the voters.

For me, this is a matter of principle and for my vote the candidates for the Commission Presidency will probably be the decisive factor.

It is not only my view that intergovernmentalism is on the rise and that petty national egoism has supplanted much of what was a modicum of Community spirit, but an analysis shared by a host of respected EU pundits who see the Commission on its way to becoming ever more like an international secretariat.

I get the impression that your defence of Barroso and the Commission is heartfelt, but does it square with developments in the real world?

I think ‘Anyone but Barroso’ implies vehement criticism. Do you really mean absolutely anyone?

I do not agree that intergovernmentalism is on the rise. One of the quiet achievements of the Barosso Commission has been to encourage the winding-up of several key European intergovernmental organisations and to consolidate their activities into the Community competences: Europol, The Council of Europe, the European Patent Office, Western European Union to name a few. At the same time Community positions are increasingly on the agenda of every intergovernmental organisation from the UN to NATO.

In an era of anti-Europe sentiment that, combined with inspired and populist policies (e.g. mobile roaming charge capping, free fruit in schools, repealing daft regulations), looks like a shrewd strategist at work to me.