The Commission Slides to support Chapter 8 of The Government and Politics of the European Union, 7th ed., by Neill Nugent

The College (the political arm) Under the Lisbon Treaty: - One Commissioner per member state - Five year term - Each Commissioner is nominated by his/her member state, but must be acceptable to the President-designate - The College as a whole must be approved by the EP after individual ‘hearings’ Commissioners are not national ‘representatives’. Each Commissioner has a portfolio.

The Bureaucracy (the administrative arm) Less than 30,000 Organised into Directorates General and other services Subject to major internal reforms in the 2000s: - much tighter internal financial management; - virtual elimination of parachutage; - a new internal grading structure; - improve gender balance, especially at senior levels

The Commission President The President-designate is appointed before other Commissioners-designate The perceived importance of the position is testified by the nomination struggles The powers of the President over the College have gradually been increased by treaty reform He is the main ‘public face’ of the EU

Roles and Function Initiator and proposer (with some exceptions) Executive functions: a few are direct (notably competition), but most involve overseeing national agencies Guardian of the legal framework Mediating and brokerage functions

Power Resources of the Commission Its powers of initiative: exclusive and non exclusive Its neutrality Its access to information: in the services; it is present in virtually all decision-making forums; it is surrounded by expert and advisory committees Smaller states look to the Commission for leadership – and most EU states are small

Commission Leadership Leadership offered by the Commission takes different forms: - agenda setting - proposing - mobilising - building consensus - brokering compromises But to what extent is this leadership provided ‘independently or ‘under instruction’?

The Academic Debate There is an extensive academic debate regarding the extent to which the Commission undertakes its leadership and other roles in an independent manner. Broadly speaking, there are two ‘polar’ views, with variations stretched out in between: - The ‘intergovernmentalist’ view (Moravcsik, Magnette): the Commission is essentially an ‘agent’. - The ‘supranationalist’ view (Beach, Schmidt, Sandholtz and Stone Sweet, Pollack): the ‘agent’ is not controlled completely by its ‘principal’; the focus should be on decision-making and not just on decision taking.

Circumstances Favourable to the Exercise of Commission Leadership Case studies by those who take a ‘supranational’ perspective show that the Commission’s potential for influential and independent action is normally greatest when: - it has strong and clear powers - QMV applies in the Council - control mechanisms are weak - there is uncertainty of information amongst the member states - there is the possibility of exploiting differences between member states

But, is the Influence of the Commission Declining? The ‘pioneering’ days are arguably over The increasing influence of the European Council The increasing influence of the European Parliament Loss of status: the 1999 crisis, internal divisions, the 2004 EP ‘hearings’ It has suffered some ‘defeats’ and failures in recent years: little influence in IGCs; SGP; liberalisation programme The growing importance of ‘non Community’ policy areas and of new modes of governance

But the Decline Should Not be Exaggerated The Commission still commands extensive power resources and has key duties to undertake. The Commission is still a central player in major EU initiatives, for example: Enlargement The SEM programme The Lisbon Process

Current Debates About the Commission Should it concentrate more on management and less on policy? Has it become too ‘political’? Should so much power be exercised by an unelected body?