The nonsense campaign against Mr Barroso

According to the current rule book of the EU, aka the Nice Treaty, it is for the national leaders to nominate a new president of the commission. Their nominee must then be approved by a simple majority of members voting in the European Parliament. That, pretty much, is that.

Arguably, national leaders are going beyond what they strictly have to do: after unanimously agreeing to offer Mr Barroso a second term, they have instructed the current and future rotating presidency countries (the Czechs and Swedes) to sound out the heads of the big parliamentary groups and ask what would happen if the Barroso re-appointment is put to MEPs in July, when they gather in Strasbourg for their first plenary session since the recent Euro-elections.

Um, where is the outrage? Over to Mr Schultz, the fact that national governments, meeting as the European Council:
“wish to run this past a meeting of the European Parliament leaders at the end of June, followed by a vote in July, rather than to have a full and official consultation of the Parliament, is wholly unacceptable. (...)
"My group objects to the indecent haste with which the Council is trying to rush through Mr. Barroso's appointment and we will certainly vote against him".

But people who dislike Mr Barroso, and there are a lot of them in the Brussels bubble, think it will be harder for him to obtain an absolute majority than a simple majority, so they want to take the decision under Lisbon rules. They argue that it is wrong to use the Nice rules, because Lisbon is coming soon and will affect the number of commissioners who will serve under the new president. So they would either like to delay the decision for months, or “anticipate” its ratification and vote as if Lisbon were in force.
I have no doubt that my children would like to “anticipate” Christmas and have their presents in October. But it ain’t happening in my house, and it is not clear to me why it should happen in the European Parliament.

Read the Economist blog