DeHavilland EU Election Briefing Series

The Spitzenkandidaten Briefing An introduction to the Spitzenkandidaten process and why it is relevant:

• The Spitzenkandidaten Process • Past Spitzenkandidaten • Current Controversey

DeHavilland’s Content Team August 2018

For more information on DeHavilland and how we can help with political monitoring, custom research and consultancy, contact:

+44 (0)20 3033 3870 [email protected] www.dehavillandeurope.eu 1 Table of Contents

Introduction Understand the content of the briefing alongside its place in the DeHavilland European Parliament Election Briefing Series p. 2

Spitzenkandidaten Process Understand how the process works in reality as well as its history p. 3

2014 Parliament Election Explore how the results of the 2014 European Parliament elections shaped the Spitzenkandidaten Process and Juncker's Commission p. 7

Political Controversey Gain insight into the ongoing political debate around the Spitzenkandidaten Process, the detractors as well as advocates, and how that could impact the upcoming elections p. 11

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 2 www.dehavillandeurope.eu Introduction

...in this briefing DeHavilland examines the legal “ uncertainty of the Spitzenkandidaten process, places it within the context of the 2014 elections, and examines the ongoing political controversy surrounding it...

In just under a year’s time, the European Parliament will be in ”the throes of its next election, and questions have been raised as to whether the Spitzenkandidaten (or 'lead candidates') process will be accepted by the European Council as a means to elect the next head of the Commission, as it was in 2014. The process is itself quite controversial, with high profile critics (including French President Emmanuel Macron) speaking out against it. However, overall it remains a popular innovation among EU citizens and within the EU Parliament. The makeup of the Commission will hinge on the successes and failures of the Spitzenkandidaten process.

In this briefing DeHavilland will examine the legal uncertainty surrounding the process, place it within the context of the 2014 elections, and examine the ongoing political controversies. Parliament's political groups will begin to announce their Spitzenkandidaten, starting with the European eople'sP Party (EPP) in November, with the second briefing examining the candidate speculation. Finally, as the election takes places soon after the European Parliament elections, we will produce our third briefing analysing the outcomes, the new Commission, and what this means for you.

European Commission attending a meeting at Rixensart 31/08/2017 / © European Union, 2017 / Source: EC - Audiovisual Service / Photo: Etienne Ansotte

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 3 www.dehavillandeurope.eu DeHavilland Briefing

The Spitzenkandidaten process

...The Spitzenkandidaten process is an “informal procedure adhered to by the European Council and the European Parliament in which a ‘lead candidate’ (or 'Spitzenkandidat') becomes the President of the European Commission... ” The procedure itself

In practice the process works as such: Each major political party in the European Parliament, prior to the Parliamentary elections, nominate their own ‘lead candidate’ (or Spitzenkandidat) who is put forward as their nomination for President of the Commission. A 'lead candidate' is then selected by the political group from the party nominations. In the subsequent Parliamentary elections, the group with the largest majority will have their candidate nominated to position of President by the European Council and finally the nominee is confirmed by a vote by the Parliament itself.

For simplicity’s sake, the following steps explain the procedure as it operates in reality:

1. Each party within a political group nominates their Spitzenkandidat before the political group collectively agree on one candidate.

2. The European Parliament elections take place, where the parties which receive the most votes nominate their candidates for Commission President.

3. The Council then formally nominates a Spitzenkandidat for Commission President taking into account the results of the Parliamentary election.

4. Parliament then votes to approve the candidate nominated by the Council i.e. the candidate set forth by Parliament itself.

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 4 www.dehavillandeurope.eu DeHavilland Briefing

However, the reality of the process does not exactly mirror the legal provisions held by the Parliament and the Council respectively. Exclusive competency to nominate the Commission President resides solely and entirely with the European Council, but Parliament has to vote to approve the nominated candidate.

The practical reality of the process comes from the sentence outlining the Council’s power in which it must “[take] into account the elections of the European Parliament”.

This is read (and enforced through Parliament's final approval vote) as an obligation of the Council to nominate the candidate put forward by the party or potential coalition which wins the largest number of seats in the Parliament. Further, there is an actual obligation for the Council and Parliament to “conduct the necessary consultations” in relation to nominating a Commission President Candidate.

The following diagram is a timeline of the Spitzenkandidaten process with key dates including Brexit:

Although there are legal obligations for the Council to consult the Parliament, there is no measure which means the Council is obligated to nominate a candidate solely on the recommendation of Parliament. The legal obligations for dialogue, the interpretation of the importance of those obligations and the Parliamentary approval vote gives the Parliament, in reality, the first and final say on the President of the Commission.

However, the Council is not merely a rubber stamp. There is provision in Article 17(7) in the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) for, if Parliament fail to come to a consensus on a nominee within a month, the Council themseleves to nominate a candidate through a qualified majority vote.

How best to interpret the extent of negotiations between the Council and the Parliament runs to the heart of the current debate over the Spitzenkandidaten procedure.

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 5 www.dehavillandeurope.eu DeHavilland Briefing History of the Spitzenkandidaten

The Spitzenkandidaten process came about organically through a number of changes in subsequent EU Treaties, particularly as a means to lend democratic legitimacy to the various EU institutions, especially the largely undemocratic Commission.

Initially, the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice between 2001 and 2003 foresaw the European Commission President being chosen by the Heads of State and Government i.e. through the European Council. The text in the Treaty was as follows:

“the Governments of the Member States shall nominate by common accord the person they intend to appoint as President of the Commission”.

The idea for the President to be nominated taking into account results of European Parliament elections was conceived at an EPP branch of a Constitutional Convention. The drafted article was then altered and adopted by the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 which took the following form in Article 17(7) TEU:

“Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament...the European Council...shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission.”

An addition to the initial draft made by the Lisbon Treaty was the clause requiring prior consultation between the Council and Parliament on choosing a suitable European Commission President nominee. The provision for political parties to nominate their candidates did not come until 2012, made in the then Commission President José Manuel Barroso’s State of the Union speech. Later in 2012 this call was echoed from the Parliament before a Commission Recommendation in 2013, calling for political parties’ ‘lead candidates’, or Spitzenkandidaten.

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 6 www.dehavillandeurope.eu DeHavilland Briefing 2014 Parliamentary Election:

...the European Elections of 2014 were “the first time that the Spitzenkandidaten process was used to elect the new President of the Commission. Each political group in the European Parliament chose their own candidate to put forward and all in different ways... ”

From 22 to 25 May 2014 elections to the European Parliament were held across Member States of the EU, marking the 8th Parliamentary election since 1979. This election as the first one in which the European Political groups put forward candidates for President of the Commission, the Spitzenkandidaten. This put added need for a high turnout as it was the first election using the new and somewhat controversial process.

Unfortunately for the candidates, and the EU itself, turnout was at an all-time low at only 42.5% which marked a continued downturn since the first election of 1979. However, in terms of absolute numbers, there was a slight increase from 163,551,013 votes cast, compared to 160,687,462 in 2009.

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 7 www.dehavillandeurope.eu DeHavilland Briefing

The results The 2014 European Parliament Election saw huge gains for the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the European United Left–Nordic Green Left (GUE/ NGL). As a result of these gains, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and European People’s Party (EPP) suffered. One of the biggest growth in seats, however, was the Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFDD) who gained 16 seats, almost doubling their previous seat share.

The graphic above shows the vote split of the 2014 European elections. The European People’s Party (EPP) remained the EU’s largest political group, with its member parties topping the polls in Member States including Germany, Hungary and Spain. They commanded 214 seats after the election, down 44. Many of their seats were taken by the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) who held 46 seats at the end of the election.

The centre-left parties of the S&D came first in Sweden, Romania, Italy and Portugal, making gains at the expense of the EPP. They gained 8 seats and had a 0.4% increase in vote share across Europe. The Greens/ EFA and Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe both saw a decrease in seats, losing 5 and 16 seats respectively.

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 8 www.dehavillandeurope.eu DeHavilland Briefing

Source: results-elections2014.eu

In the UK, France and Greece smaller parties on the edges of the political spectrum garnered the most votes: UKIP (EFD), Front National (EAF) and SYRIZA (GUE/NGL). The above graphic shows the most popular party in each member state. The EFD gained 16 seats and 2.1% vote increase.

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 9 www.dehavillandeurope.eu DeHavilland Briefing The Juncker Commission The European Elections of 2014 were the first time that the Spitzenkandidaten process was used to elect the new President of the Commission. Each political group in the European Parliament chose their own candidate to put forward and all in different ways.

The ways in which each political group chose their 2014 candidates is as follows.

Martin Schulz, then President of the European Parliament, was unsurprisingly chosen by S&D to be their lead candidate through internal primaries within each of their member parties and organisations. The Greens/EFA ran an online primary open to all inhabitants of the EU over the age of 16 who supported “green values”. Ska Keller, a German MEP, was their chosen candidate.

ALDE struggled to find a candidate following concerns that their declared candidates would not stand a chance of being elected as President. However, eventually they settled for Guy Verhofstadt as their elected candidate.

The GUE/NGL chose to put forward Greek opposition leader Alex Tsipras, leader of the Syriza party, as their candidate. He was chosen by the GUE/NGL December Congress and was said to be “the voice of resistance and hope against the ultra-liberal policies and facing the threat of the extreme right".

The EPP selected Luxembourger Jean-Claude Juncker as their chosen Spitzenkandidat. The EPP adopted an election manifesto that focused on EU growth, employment, energy policy, trade with US and the monetary union. Juncker also set out priorities for immigration and foreign policy.

The EPP, winning a plurality in the elections, presented Jean-Claude Juncker as their candidate to the European Council on 27 June 2014 who accepted and nominated him as the Spitzenkandidaten for Commission President. All of the Council agreed except for British Prime Minister David Cameron and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Parliament voted to approve Juncker as President of the Commission on 15 July 2014. On 22 October, the European Parliament approved the entirety of Juncker’s Commission and this was also agreed by the European Council over the next few days. The following weeks, on 1 November 2014, the new Commission officially took up office under President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker.

Jean-Claude Juncker at a press conference on the negotiations with Greece 29/06/2015 / © European Union, 2015 / Source: EC - Audiovisual Service / Photo: Etienne Ansotte

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 10 www.dehavillandeurope.eu DeHavilland Briefing Political Controversey ...some argue that it undermines the “authority of the European Council and Member States, while its proponents claim it is now a fundamental pillar of European democratic credibility...”

The Spitzenkandidaten process, according to the European Commission, asw born out of “unique circumstances” as a means for the European Union to regain the confidence of European citizens which was at a low following the financial crisis. They felt this could be achieved by providing a popular leadership contest for the top job in the Commission, avoiding the “meanders of the political process” and, perhaps, injecting a visible democratic element into the makeup of the Commission. However, the process itself remains highly contentious among the Member States and EU Institutions who would prefer more control.

The exact wording of the Lisbon Treaty is as follows:

“The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission”.

Yet, the Spitzenkandidaten process, an apparent subversion of this convention, has been described as “a logical consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon” by the Commission. In the 2014 Spitzenkandidaten ‘experiment’, Jean-Claude Juncker was the preferred candidate of the European Parliament’s largest party, the EPP despite initial resistance from Member States, including Angela Merkel. The perceived popularity of the Spitzenkandidaten process appeared to win the Member States over, who accepted Mr Juncker to the position without any legal obligation to do so. Consequently, the debate over whether to continue the process for this year’s Commission elections continues, with some arguing that it undermines the authority of the European Council and Member States, while its proponents claim it is now a fundamental pillar of European democratic credibility.

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 11 www.dehavillandeurope.eu DeHavilland Briefing

The European Parliament’s largest parties, including the EPP, the S&D, and ALDE, have committed to following the process once more, and are expected to adopt a resolution declaring Parliament will only approve a Spitzenkandidat as Commission President. Yet, given the vague basis of the Lisbon Treaty for such a process, Member States are expected to hit back against a process they perceive as favouring Germany and France, the two largest nations in the European Parliament, and favouring the Parliament’s two largest parties, the EPP and the S&D.

The European Parliament used the opportunity of the recent Eurobarometer survey, published exactly one year before the next European Parliament elections, to restate public support for the Spitzenkandidaten process. 67% of respondents believed that EU membership benefited their country, the highest approval rating since 1983, and overall, public support for the Spitzenkandidaten process was high. 63% felt the process provided greater transparency, 61% felt it represented a major step forward for democracy in the EU, and 60% felt it gave more legitimacy to the European Commission.

However, this did not deter French President Emmanuel Macron who has publicly pushed back against the idea, suggesting that it ensures that a centrist candidate with the support of Europe’s traditional parties will almost always win the election. Accordingly, smaller political groups in the European Parliament have refused to field candidates and may do so once more. Dutch MP Anne Mulder makes the case that such a process overly politicises the Commission, imbuing it with the political conflict of the European Parliament, which, in her view, has led to favourable decision making for some countries. However, Ireland, Italy and Spain appear to be in favour of endorsing the process for 2019.

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 12 www.dehavillandeurope.eu DeHavilland Briefing Conclusion

Most interestingly, there remain a number of questions yet to be answered regarding the upcoming European Parliament elections - Will Macron's En Marche party join with ALDE or form their own European Parliament political group? Will Italy's M5S (Five Star Movement) remain with the EFDD? Such configurations would undoubtedly have an impact on the Spitzenkandidaten process. However, if the EPP remain the largest party in the European Parliament, it will be difficult to envisage a likely alternative than their Spitzenkandidaten for the top job at the Commission.

DeHavilland will be tracking these developments over the coming months through our Briefing Series on the European Parliamentary elections. Expect detailed insight into the preferred candidates of the Parliament's political groups, their interests and their impact in our second Spitzenkandidaten briefing towards the end of the year.

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 13 www.dehavillandeurope.eu We hope you found this briefing useful This briefing is an example of the in-depth political information ew provide to public affairs and policy professionals every day.

Our analysts gather vital political news from a range of sources to bring our customers live coverage tailored to their information needs.

To find out how DeHavilland’s political monitoring and research can help your organisation, and to request a consultation, visit www1.dehavilland.co.uk/trial

DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2018 14 www.dehavillandeurope.eu