DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of Beef Producers in the European Union

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of Beef Producers in the European Union Dr Franz Fischler SPEECH/97/159 European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development The future of Beef Producers in the European Union Check Against Delivery National Farmer’s Union of England andSeul Wales le texte prononcé fait foi Wales, 11 July 1997 Es gilt das gesprochene wort Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today on the future for beef and veal producers in the European Union. As you may imagine it is not an easy task to tackle the current problems of this important sector of European agriculture. But I understand very well that beef producers, in particular in England and Wales, have to know how policies in the beef sector will develop. Not only because the livestock sector is the major contributor to the value of agricultural production - here in Wales for instance more than 80 % of this value comes from grazing livestock- but also because the sector has experienced a fundamental crisis during the last year. Beef farmers in particular in England and Wales have had to go through a traumatic period of uncertanity. I therefore appreciate all the more the constructive way the farmers and their unions have contributed to solve the problems. Consumer confidence in the quality and safety of European beef has been profoundly shaken. It is not easy to regain the confidence of consumers and convince them that all necessary actions are being taken in order to guarantee safe food. The Commission has been accused of not giving first priority to human health or even of having deliberately put out misleading information. I firmly reject such accusations. On the contrary, the motto of the Santer Commission has always been to promote transparency and scientific methods in order to eliminate risks to human health. A recent example is our renewed proposal on the treatment of specified risk material in all Member States. On the detailed scientific and technical questions concerning health, the Commission must take scientific advice. Neither I nor any other politician, scientist or journalist alone will ever be in a position to understand all the particular aspects of such a complex problem as BSE. We need the experts to examine the question from all different angles and then advise us, today and in the future. In order to guarantee in the long-term that consumers are at no risk from BSE, I have put forward a major research programme involving international experts which will clarify the areas in which action still needs to be taken. But we should not be impatient with scientific advice and expect quick results instead of trying to understand better the scientific problems and methods. I would add that a methodical approach is also needed when it comes to lifting the export ban. I am aware that farmers in the United Kingdom feel their patience is being stretched. Nevertheless, all the practical aspects of a staged lifting of the ban need to be examined thoroughly by the scientific experts. This takes time. Nevertheless, important progress has been made in examining the UK authorities’ request for exports from certified herds. The Scientific Veterinary Committee has looked at this proposal and raised a number of concerns and points for clarification. I understand that the United Kingdom authorities are in the process of revising their proposal in order to take account of these concerns. We shall then have to see whether on a scientific level the scheme can be given a green light. I also understand that the United Kingdom authorities are looking at a scheme for permitting the export of animals born after a particular date. Although the devil always tends to be in the detail, this idea seems, on the face of it, to have the merit of simplicity. 2 If Community legislation is to make a greater contribution to winning back consumer confidence in European beef, our rules must be consolidated and simplified to make them more transparent. Consumers are often not aware that the European Union is ahead of the rest of the world with many of our veterinary and hygiene measures. Over recent years, the Commission has examined the legal basis of our rules with the aim of achieving consolidated, comprehensive yet simpler measures which the food industry and the consumer will easily understand. However, consumers must also be certain that all measures necessary for their protection are being taken. I don’t have to remind you that the standards approved at Community level must be applied by the Member States. An examination of measures to combat BSE was presented to the Standing Veterinary Committee in March. It revealed shortcomings in many Member States, particularly in the practical application of the approved measures, the training of technicians and inspectors, checks on carcass meat and the prevention of the risk of contamination of other foodstuffs. Meanwhile the Commission is preparing legal actions against 10 Member States for failing to implement properly the new food safety rules. Recent discoveries in relation to illegal export of British beef undermine our efforts to assure consumers that precautionary measures taken to protect them will indeed do so. It is essential that Member States redouble their efforts to ensure proper control. Clearly, the United Kingdom has a key role to play in this respect. Indeed, there is a vital interest at stake since a breach of the export ban does not bring any closer the day when consumer confidence is fully restored. Ladies and Gentlemen, It is in the interest of beef farmers and the beef industry as a whole to rebuild European beef consumption. This is possible only if the whole sector can give sufficient guarantees on the safety and the quality of beef. I believe the best guarantee will be if beef is no longer an anonymous product. Already in 1993, the Commission laid down that a comprehensive system of tracing products was a precondition for the payment of assistance under its promotional measures for quality beef and veal. Sales of beef and veal meeting the criteria of the European quality programme now have reached almost 350 000 tonnes per year. In some Member States the market share has increased to 20 %. I think this can be seen as a real success and we should continue this approach. I think if we want to regain consumers’ confidence in beef and veal it is necessary to individualise it and to give the consumer information on the origin of the meat he or she is buying. You all know the discussion on beef labelling that has taken place since last summer. The main subject of controversy was the voluntary or compulsory character of the system. 3 A voluntary system has the advantage of minimising the whole burden of control. Such a system can be based on internal inspection. External control would then be limited to supervising the system as a whole. A compulsory approach, on the other hand, puts the duty of control on the competent authority, and this would need a fully effective identification and registration system for beef animals functioning in all Member States together with a central data base. Although a compulsory system would be the best solution to satisfy consumer demands as quickly as possible this could not be realised in the immediate future throughout all Member States of the Union. For this reason the Council decided to start with a voluntary system until the year 2000 and to introduce mandatory labelling from that year on. The Council however acknowledged that some Member States already have an efficient animal identification system. They are permitted to introduce immediately an obligatory labelling system for meat coming from their own animals. Another point of discussion was the information to be put on the label. No precise commitments have been introduced for the first phase before the year 2000. However, the Council indicated its intention to introduce obligatory information about Member State of birth, fattening and slaughter of the animal from the year 2000 on. This decision was taken unanimously by the Council against the Commission. The Commission was opposed principally because we were of the view that the legal basis of the rules should be a broader one than simply the “agricultural” article 43 of the treaty. In addition to this concern, the Commission would have preferred that origin indications make reference to regions instead of Member States in order to avoid any distortion of the internal market or even a renationalisation of the beef market. From my point of view, there is no link between the Member State of birth, fattening or slaughter and the quality of meat. For the European consumer this kind of link with a region is much more readily understandable. The main controversial point was however the legal basis. Following the amendment of the European Parliament, the Commission brought its proposals up to date in order to amalgamate the two initial texts into a single proposal and put it on a legal basis, Article 100A, which requires a stronger participation of the European Parliament in the decision procedure. In its final decision, the Council returned to the traditional legal base and I personally regret this very much. During the next years we will have to see how the labelling system develops and examine how it contributes to restoring consumers’ confidence in beef and veal. Based on this experience a report will be drafted by mid 1999 so that the general rules for mandatory labelling of beef from the year 2000 onwards can provide an efficient system of quality control. 4 In my opinion it is essential that the beef sector and agriculture as a whole respond to the demand for all-round quality and control of foodstuff at every stage in the production chain.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Power of Initiative of the European Commission: a Progressive Erosion?
    The Power of Initiative of the European Commission: A Progressive Erosion? Paolo PONZANO, Costanza HERMANIN and Daniela CORONA Preface by António Vitorino Studies & 89 Research Study & The Power of Initiative 89 of the European Commission: Research A Progressive Erosion? PAOLO PONZANO, COSTANZA HERMANIN AND DANIELA CORONA Preface by António Vitorino Paolo PONZANO is a senior fellow at the European University Institute and a special adviser of the European Commission. Former collaborator of Altiero Spinelli at the Institute for International Affairs in Rome, he has worked for the European Commission from 1971 to 2009. He was formerly Director for Relations with the Council of ministers, subsequently for Institutional Matters and Better Regulation. He was also Alternate Member of the European Convention in 2002/2003. He published several articles and chapters on the EU institutions. He teaches European Governance and Decision-Making at the University of Florence and at the European College of Parma as well as European Law at the University of Rome. Costanza HERMANIN is a researcher in the department of social and political science of the European University Institute, where she is about to complete her PhD. Her research interests comprise EU social and immigration policy, EU institutional affairs, and human rights and immigration policy in Italy. She has been visiting fellow at several places (WZB, CERI, Columbia, Berkeley). She is the co-editor of a forthcoming book on “Fighting Race Discrimination in Europe” (Routledge, 2012). She has been publishing on Italian and English speaking journals. Daniela CORONA is currently research collaborator at the Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute in Florence where she completed her PhD.
    [Show full text]
  • Legitimacy, Accountability and Democracy in the European Union 3
    LEGITIMACY,LEGITIMACY, ACCOUNTABILITYACCOUNTABILITY ANDAND DEMOCRACYDEMOCRACY Determining a viable economic and political framework ININ THETHE for the Eurozone EUROPEANEUROPEAN UNIONUNION A FEDERAL TRUST REPORT JANUARY 2007 PROFESSOR VERNON BOGDANOR 2 A Federal Trust Report Author Vernon Bogdanor - Professor of Government, Brasenose College, Oxford University The Federal Trust is grateful for the help in the preparation of this report to the following members of the working group which met throughout 2006 under the chairmanship of Professor Bogdanor. Mary Dejevsky Lord Dykes Maurice Fraser Guy Lodge Christopher Lord Kalypso Nicolaidis John Peet Julie Smith Anthony Teasdale Professor Takis Tridimas Professor Stephen Weatherill Professor Richard Whitman All the above commend this report as an important contribution to debate, but only Professor Bogdanor and the Federal Trust are responsible for the report’s conclusions and the details of its analysis. Editorial Assistance (Federal Trust) Brendan Donnelly Joana Cruz Markus Wagner Legitimacy, Accountability and Democracy in the European Union 3 LEGITIMACY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND DEMOCRACY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION A Federal Trust Report January 2007 enlightening the debate on good governance 4 A Federal Trust Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The European Union was founded to promote democracy in Europe. Yet its institutions and procedures leave much to be desired by democratic standards. The Union’s powers should be exercised in accordance with modern principles of democratic and accountable government. The purpose of this report is to show how this can be achieved. Legitimacy, accountability and democracy in the European Union Although there are more opportunities to hold the institutions of the European Union to account than is generally recognised, it is, nevertheless, widely seen as remote and unpredictable.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics, Legitimacy and Institutional Balance: What Is the EU and Why Is the Commission?
    A Politics, Legitimacy and Institutional Balance: What is the EU and Why is the Commission? Dr Edward Best*, Head of Unit ‘European Decision-Making’, EIPA Maastricht 7 The 2014 European elections were intended to boost the legitimacy of both the European Parliament and the European Commission. The person nominated by the European Council as the next Commission President was the candidate of the European political party which won most seats, and was thus ‘elected’ by Parliament. This process may prove to have contributed to multi-level political participation in the long run. However, it has not (yet) halted the trend of an ever lower turnout in European elections, while the results produced a further weakening of the core centrist, and pro-integration groups in Parliament. Jean-Claude Juncker, the incoming President, stressed that his Commission would be political, not technocratic. He has also suggested that the democratic legitimacy of the Commission comes from the European Parliament. The Commission has always been institutionally accountable to the Parliament, but its role in promoting the general interest of the Union also depends upon its being seen as independent and impartial, and not directly linked to short-term party politics. The legitimacy of this role lies largely in the treaty which created the Commission. On the other hand, greater sensitivity to organised political opinion at EU level is a counterweight to politicisation by national influences, and the supranational appointment of the President is a balance to the composition of one member from each Member State, now including several former Prime Ministers. This may prove to be a new institutional hybrid which is actually rather well suited for the uncertain political times ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronicle of an Election Foretold: the Longer-Term Trends Leading to the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ Procedure and the Election of Jean-Claude Juncker As European
    LSE ‘Europe in Question’ Discussion Paper Series Chronicle of an Election Foretold: The Longer-Term Trends leading to the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ procedure and the Election of Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission President Martin Westlake LEQS Paper No. 102/2016 January 2016 LEQS is generously supported by the LSE Annual Fund Editorial Board Dr Joan Costa-i-Font Dr Vassilis Monastiriotis Dr Jonathan White Dr Katjana Gattermann Dr Sonja Avlijas All views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the LSE. © Martin Westlake Chronicle of an Election Foretold: The Longer-Term Trends leading to the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ procedure and the Election of Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission President Martin Westlake* Abstract By focusing on the near-term campaign in the 2014 European elections analysts have tended to over-look a series of longer-term trends that were jointly and inexorably leading to the Spitzenkandidaten (lead candidate) process and to some at least of the subsequent structural reforms to the Commission. The paper argues that those longer-term trends continue and that the (s)election of Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission and the structural reforms he subsequently introduced are better understood as steps in ongoing processes rather than fresh departures. Thus, what will happen in 2019 will have been conditioned not only by 2014, but also by previous elections and previous developments, as considered in this paper. Keywords: European Commission Presidency, Jean-Claude Juncker, Spitzenkandidaten, European Parliament, Longer-Term Trends * Visiting Professor, College of Europe, Bruges Senior Visiting Fellow, European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE Email: [email protected] The Longer-Term Trends leading to the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ procedure Table of Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Convention: Public
    THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION Brussels, 7 July 2003 THE SECRETARIAT CONV 844/03 CONTRIB 380 COVER NOTE from Secretariat to The Convention Subject : Contribution of Mr David Heathcoat-Amory, member of the Convention: - “ Systems of Mismanagement ” The Secretary-General of the Convention has received the contribution annexed hereto from Mr David Heathcoat-Amory, member of the Convention. CONV 844/03 1 EN ANNEX Systems of Mismanagement "Mine is not a comfortable position" Whistleblower As the Convention turns to "The Policies and Functioning of the Union" (Part III), it may be worth a moment’s review of how elements of the Communities are presently being mismanaged; how attempts to correct these failings are being stonewalled; and what the Heads of Government could do to achieve reform and restore public confidence. Certainly, the system needs to be fundamentally repaired before we contemplate adding even more powers and responsibilities to those who manage it. I am referring to the issue of fraud, which is close to being institutionalised in key sectors of the Union. After the scandals which led to the unprecedented resignation of the Santer Commission in 1999, there followed promise of major reform. A Commission Vice-President was charged with overseeing the task. However, the promised reform has failed to materialise. The European Court of Auditors continues its annual tradition of refusing discharge for the budget (a practice now in its eighth year). The last independent audit of the Commission Treasury took place ten years ago. No change to the Commission accounting system has yet taken place, despite three years of promises.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Title Page
    The Politics of Change: Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union A thesis submitted to the Miami University Honors Program in partial fulfillment of the requirements for University Honors with Distinction by Justin Anthony Nigro May 2006 Miami University Oxford, Ohio ii ABSTRACT The Politics of Change: Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union by Justin Anthony Nigro Beginning with the MacSharry reforms of 1992 and continuing under the Agenda 2000 reform package and the Fischler mid-term review reforms of 2003, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union has experienced a fundamental restructuring in recent years. This was impossible only twenty years before, as proven by the quiet death of the Mansholt Plan in the early 1970s. From where did this impetus to reform originate? I begin by tracing the history of the CAP, dividing it into two stages—1) the evolution of the CAP, ranging from its inception in the 1950s to the end of the 1970s, and 2) the modification of the CAP, from the 1980s onward. After studying the history of the types of reform proposed and pursued, I focus on the major reform period of the last two decades. In this part of the analysis, I investigate the pressures behind CAP reform in the past fifteen years, seeking to explain how internal and external forces compelled policymakers in Brussels either to take or to refrain from action. I identify explanatory variables to characterize the politics of inertia and change within CAP policymaking and decision-making. Lastly, I classify these variables as endogenous or exogenous in nature.
    [Show full text]
  • The Enlarged European Commission European Commission
    Policy Paper n°11 The Enlarged European Commission.Commission. John Peterson John Peterson John Peterson is Professor of International Politics at the University of Edinburgh. He has previously held posts at the Universities of Glasgow, York, Essex, Oxford, and the University of California. He has been a visiting researcher or professor at the Universities of Vienna, Paris, California (Berkeley), University College Dublin, the Centre for European Policy Studies (Brussels), and the College of Europe (Bruges). Current or recent works include: Europe and America: Partners and Rivals in International Relations (Rowman and Littlefield, 2006, forthcoming, 3rd edition) ; The Institutions of the European Union (co-edited with Michael Shackleton, Oxford University Press, 2005, forthcoming, 2nd edition) ; Europe, America, Bush: Transatlantic Relations in the 21st Century (co-edited with Mark Pollack, Routledge, 2003) ; Integration in an Expanding European Union: Reassessing the Fundamentals (co-edited with J H H Weiler and Iain Begg, Blackwell, 2003) Professor Peterson edits the 'New European Union' series (together with Helen Wallace) for Oxford University Press, and was editor of the Journal of Common Market Studies from 1998- 2003. He was educated at Ithaca College, the University of California (Santa Barbara), and the London School of Economics and Political Science. Notre Europe Notre Europe is an independent research and policy unit whose objective is the study of Europe – its history and civilisations, integration process and future prospects. The association was founded by Jacques Delors in the autumn of 1996. It has a small team of six in-house researchers from various countries. Notre Europe participates in public debate in two ways.
    [Show full text]
  • List of College of Europe Alumni Holding High Positions
    LIST OF COLLEGE OF EUROPE ALUMNI HOLDING HIGH POSITIONS SURNAME Given name Promotion Citizenship Function ACCILI - SABBATINI Maria 1979-1980 (IT) Ambassador of Italy to Hungary (Budapest) (since 30.05.2012) Assunta ADINOLFI Gaetano 1950-1951 (IT) President of the European Cinema Support Fund “EURIMAGES” (Council of Europe), (retired) Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe (1978 – 1993), elected by the Parliamentary Assembly for a period of five years, then twice re-elected. AGUIAR MACHADO João 1983-1984 (PT) - Director General DG MARE (September 2015 - present) – European Luis, PAVÃO de Commission - Director-General DG "Mobility and Transport" (MOVE) (May 2014 - August 2015) – European Commission - Deputy Director-General, for services, investment, intellectual property, government procurement, bilateral trade relations with Asia, Africa and Latin America, DG TRADE (January 2009 - April 2014) – European Commission - Deputy Director-General in charge of Asia and Latin America, DG EXTERNAL RELATIONS (September 2007 - December 2008) – European Commission - Director, for trade in services and investment, bilateral trade relations with the Americas and the Far East, DG TRADE (January 2007 - September 2007) – European Commission Dijver 11 · 8000 Brugge · Belgium/Belgique T +32 50 47 71 11 · F +32 50 47 71 10 · [email protected] - Director, for trade in services and investment; agriculture, SPS; sustainable development. Bilateral trade relations with China, DG TRADE (April 2004 - December 2006) - European Commission - Head of Unit,
    [Show full text]
  • Together /I[ Europe
    FORTNIGHTLY BUREAU DE DEPOT BRUXELLES "X" 1st November 1994 - If 57 +*+ t I TOGETHER .l * .r * t+* /I[ EUROPE EC NEWSLETTER FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE REI"ATIONS WITII THE COMMT]NITY CONTENT5 ACCESSION STRATEGY FOR ASSOCIATED REI,ATIONS COINTNES WITH THE COMMT]NITY The meeting in Luxembourg on 31 October between the EU Council of Foreign Ministers and their counterparts from the ACCESSION STRATEffi 1 Associated Countries ofcentral and eastern Europe was singularly characterized as a "historical" meeting. Formally it was the first POLISH WEW OF DR,4FT meetingunder the framework of strategtof accession as opressed STPATEw 2 in the conclusions of the Copenhagen and Corfu European Coun- cils. It was also the first meeting which was held in advance of the GLOBAL POLIff FOR THE ECCouncil meeti.g so that the normalmeeting could take into BALNCS 1 account the proposals and attitudes elpressed. Thetwo andhalf hour debate wassubstantial.A significant NEGOTUNONS WTT.H oonvergence of views has been reached and this may permit the SLOWNU 5 Council to finalize, by the end of Norrcmber, the final document on the Strategl to Prepare the Countries of central and EUROPEAN TRAINING easternEurope forAccession for the Essen EuropeanCouncil in FOWDATTON 5 December. There is certain disappointment that there is not yet a ROITUNU-EU TOINT formal decision on ajoint meetingat Essen between the European COMMITTEE 6 Council andtheHeads of State and Governmentof the associated countries. Mr. Kinkel conlirmed that there was an agreement in DEFINITIW ANN.DUMPING principle to hold such meeting but no formal decision. DAW ON METAL-CI4LCruM- Sources in the German Presidency suggested to us, that a APPEALTOCOURT 6 fair amount of exchange of views among the Member Countries still needs to be made before the strategl plan would be ready AGNCWTURE COUNCIL for approrral and for presentation to the heads of state of the APPROWS IMPROWMENTS associated countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Appointment of the Commission: Parliament's Role Before 1995
    Appointment of the Commission: Parliament's role before 1995 SUMMARY In September 2014, the Commissioners-designate for the Juncker Commission will be required to appear before the European Parliament’s committees as part of the procedure for the approval of the European Commission. This will be the fifth set of hearings to be held since 1995. But what about the Commissions prior to 1995? Did Parliament already have a role to play in the new Commission’s appointment in those days? With this briefing we provide a short account of the procedure used before 1995 and the long road which Parliament had to take to have its say in the appointment of the Commission. It has always been the tradition for each President of the Commission, when taking office, to deliver a general policy statement before Parliament. Until 1981, when Parliament approved the appointment of the Thorn Commission with its resolution of 12 February, the newly nominated President of the Commission gave a speech to Parliament in plenary. However, no vote of approval or of confidence was taken until 15 January 1985, when the first vote of confidence was passed in the first Delors Commission. Formal hearings of commissioners-designate were introduced as a result of the Maastricht Treaty. The first Commission to be subject to this new procedure was the Santer Commission in 1995. In this briefing: From Hallstein to Jenkins - statements before the EP Towards the vote of confidence - European Parliament resolutions Vote of confidence in the new Commission Vote of approval Main references EPRS Appointment of the Commission From Hallstein to Jenkins - statements before the European Parliament The Treaty of Rome (1958) did not contain provisions regarding the involvement of Parliament in the approval or nomination of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commission and Institutional Reforms LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Published Version
    The Commission and institutional reforms LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/101101/ Version: Published Version Book Section: Ludlow, N. Piers (2019) The Commission and institutional reforms. In: Dujardin, Vincent, Bussiere, Eric, Ludlow, Piers, Romero, Federico, Schlenker, Dieter, Varsori, Antonio and Kaisin, Sophie, (eds.) The European Commision 1986-2000: history and memories of an institution. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, pp. 155-164. ISBN 9789279897535 Reuse Items deposited in LSE Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the LSE Research Online record for the item. [email protected] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ 155 Chapter 6 The Commission and institutional reforms The period between 1986 and 2000 constituted in order to meet its massively increased range of the most intensive period of formalised institu­ tasks and cope with its ever growing membership. tional change in the history of the European in­ tegration process. It began, after all, with the ink Unsurprisingly the European Commission was barely dry on the Single European Act (SEA) — at the heart of this debate, both as an object of the treaty had been agreed in December 1985 but discussion — in other words one of the institu­ would not be signed until February 1986 — and tions whose shape, powers and prerogatives were ended with the agreement, in December 2000, on at issue — and still more as an active participant the Treaty of Nice.
    [Show full text]
  • Briefing Note on the Role and Election of The
    Role and election of the President of the European Commission The President of the European Commission (EC) has taken on an ever more prominent leading role within the College of Commissioners, with the increasingly presidential system eclipsing the principle of collegiate decision-making. With the European Council and European Parliament now together responsible for the appointment, the Presidency has not only become a much more politicised office, but the President has also gained greater influence vis-à-vis the other members of the Commission. The Commission President plays a crucial role in relations between Parliament and Commission. Presenting the priorities for his Commission to Parliament ahead of his election sets the course for the whole term, on which the President will be called to account by Parliament. Building on this, Parliament has an increasingly prominent role in political agenda-setting, shaping the EU's legislative programming together with the Commission and the Council. At the end of President Barroso's second term as Commission President, many criticise the lack of ambitious initiatives undertaken whereas others believe that the economic and institutional difficulties which the EU faced made this inevitable. The priorities set by President-designate Jean Claude Juncker during his electoral campaign point to revisiting the EU's monetary policy to give the Commission a stronger role relative to the European Central Bank, as well as to addressing the "UK question", while ensuring that the fundamentals of the single market are maintained. As Spitzenkandidat (lead candidate) of the party which gained most seats in the European elections, Juncker is seen to benefit from greater legitimacy than his predecessors, but a President Juncker would also have to demonstrate to citizens that this strength will translate into a Commission programme addressing their needs.
    [Show full text]