Article
Stefan Lehne
{
"authors": [
"Stefan Lehne"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "EP",
"programs": [
"Europe"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Europe",
"Western Europe",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"EU",
"Democracy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Power Struggle for European Commission President Looms After Elections
In the upcoming European elections, voters will have a say in who becomes the next president of the European Commission, but the procedure is more complicated than it seems.
By Stefan Lehne
Published on May 19, 2014
Source: Euronews
There are just three days left until voting begins in the European elections. This time, voters will be getting a say in who becomes the next president of the European Commission.
It’s the first time this is happening and no-one seems sure how it will work out in practice.
In the past it was the heads of state, brought together in the European Council, who chose the president.In an attempt to make the process more democratic, the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon stated they must “take into account” the election results.
Stefan Lehne, a researcher at foreign-policy think tank Carnegie Europe, says that as the “taking into account” has not been clearly defined, sparks could fly between the Council and parliament after the election.
“I believe the voters will have an important input in the decision but maybe not the final word. If you look at the treaty (Treaty of Lisbon) it says very clearly that the proposal for the next President of the Commission will come from the European Council by qualified majority vote and taking into consideration the results of the European Parliament elections,” Lehne said, adding: “so what we could get is a fight between the Parliament and the European Council and there will be a need through consultations to find a solution that is acceptable to both sides.”
Each of the main parties has chosen their lead candidate to be president. The party which gets the most MEPS or backing from the most groups will expect their man or woman to get this top job.
However, heads of state are under no obligation to pick any of the parties’ lead candidates. They want to be free to choose their own person for the post, as well as the two other top jobs, the European Council president and the foreign affairs chief.
Once the heads of state have made their selection, it must then be approved by an absolute majority in parliament. If parliament chooses to block the selection, that’s when the power struggle between the two EU institutions will really be felt.
In the European Union, the president of the parliament is essentially the speaker of the parliament. It’s the president of the Commission who has the real power.
“He or she is a political figure, an important political figure” says Lehne, “the Commission has the right of initiative, legislative proposals and that is very much a political exercise. At the same time the Commission in many regards is more a referee than a team leader.”
The person who gets the top job will need to be able to work and negotiate with all the EU institutions. According to Lehne: “the president of the Commission is a very powerful figure. But it’s crucial that he is not just the creature of the European Parliament but he is also responsible to the European Council and works well with the European Council.
“Because we have also seen over the last ten years that the top body in the EU, the real decisions, the actual core functions are done on the level of heads of states and governments.”
It was hoped that by changing the system and making it more democratic it would encourage people to turn out and vote. If it ends in confusion or stalemate, it may just put more voters off engaging with Europe.
About the Author
Stefan Lehne
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Stefan Lehne is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, where his research focuses on the post–Lisbon Treaty development of the European Union’s foreign policy, with a specific focus on relations between the EU and member states.
- What Can the EU Do About Trump 2.0?
- Can the EU Meet the Trump Moment?Commentary
Stefan Lehne
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.
Marc Pierini
- The EU Needs a Third Way in IranCommentary
European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.
Richard Youngs
- Resetting Cyber Relations with the United StatesArticle
For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.
Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter
- Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not LessCommentary
Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.
Dimitar Bechev
