_Viewed 113 times | words: 1444
Published on 2024-11-03 21:00:00 | words: 1444
Let's assume that you read previous articles within the EP2024 series, articles that started publishing in March 2024, few months before the latest round of European Parliament elections.
Of course, you noticed how, if compared with the announce about this series of articles, EP2024Series_00 The tumbleweed of EU decision-making, published on 2024-03-17, few things changed.
Notably: the timeline was altered, and few titles and articles structures did change (and will change).
As usual: it is the planning activity in and by itself that matters, not the plan per se.
And any plan does not survive the first contact with reality, as a general supposedly said.
Nonetheless, all the preparation and planning activities, including the associated information search and processing activities, are critical to ensure adaptability to unforeseen changes.
As how can you cope with unexpected if you do not know even what you should know?
If you were to have a look at the introductory article linked above, you would see that now were planned articles with the titles:
_ next
_ one-two-three
_ Halloween
_ end of the beginning
Of course, the "one-two-three" is linked to my expectation, in March, that we were drifting into a confirmation (and yes, it is a quote about a movie by Billy Wilder set in Berlin before the Berlin Wall was up, on a coca-cola representative).
While the "Halloween" was the expectation that the 16th article would be released by October 31st.
And the end of the beginning? It is an equally obvious quote from a speech delivered by Winston Churchill long, long, long ago.
As part of my experiments (which will result in more publications and website features by early 2025), beside following further training, as I did in previous recent articles asked to an AI model to read the previous "episodes" of this series, follow a "prompt" I presented, and generate some text.
In this case, I asked about the forthcoming term of the European Commission- I will skip the main body of the answer, but these are the incipit:
"
and the ending:
"The blueprint outlined in this article provides a comprehensive framework for the next European Commission to tackle the complex issues facing Europe over the course of its 2024-2029 mandate. By focusing on climate action, economic growth, foreign policy, democracy, and identity, the EU can build a more united, sustainable, and prosperous future for all its citizens. The time is now to act boldly and decisively in pursuit of this vision. "
plus the sections it defined:
1. Climate Action and Sustainable Development
2. Economic Growth, Social Cohesion, and Digital Transformation
3. Foreign Policy and Security
4. Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law
5. Strengthening European Identity and Values
Well, I think that we do not need AI to generate platitudes about what the next European Commission should do- albeit, of course, few minutes and few eurocents of electricity are better than having countless of meetings involving plenty of staff, consultants, and of course catering for all of them.
As I kept hearing times and again the same proposals, under slightly different disguises, even before starting to live in Brussels almost 20 years ago.
Anyway, the key element that brought about a reschedule was actually the acceleration of some steps in the process of selection of the leadership and confirmation of the European Commission.
And the acceleration really started long before the European Parliament elections date was announced.
On 2024-10-10 was confirmed the completion of the check on possible conflicts of interest of Commissioners-designate.
At the previous link, you can read the full list, and the associated documentation (CV, disclosure on potential conflicts of interest, Q&A) for each one of the commissioner-candidate.
The European Commission is an unusual type of executive, composed by appointees from each Member State who, once they enter office, should represent the European Union, not their own country.
Albeit: many had prior experience in government in their own country, or even were part of the national or European Parliament (the latter, incidentally, is involved within the European Commission confirmation process).
At the same time "technical", gradually the European Commission got a political role- also due to some quixotic elements of the Byzantine organizational design of the European Union institutions.
Generally, if you have a political role, this implies having received a political mandate- which some would claim that the Spitzenkandidat approach represents, where each "political family" within the European Parliament identifies who they would like to become President of the European Commission if leading at the polls in the European Parliament elections.
I beg to differ, for reasons that I shared in previous articles in this series (and many more before, since 2008, also if you can see on this website mainly articles published from 2012).
Anyway, this is my personal objection and perspective- which is not shared by many.
Another personal objection that probably is shared by more observers is the concept that each Member State has to appoint somebody who somehow will land a "role": imagine a Government for a Member State (as this is de facto what the European Commission became, notably since it started looking for money on the markets, a.k.a. debt) where each region within said state were to have a cabinet role.
Now, if 27 Member States is a large number, imagine if the European Union were to gradually take on board other countries- somebody calls for 35 or even more (as "European" could quietly evolve into "European and Mediterranean", up to the Caucasus and Anatolia).
Just carving out portfolios or making them up to find a corner for each Member States to sell back home is nto the way to set up a working executive.
Actually, the net result is that "less is more", i.e. in the end few of those 27 really matter or are involved in choices that matter.
But traditionally all of them are prodigious producers of statements, announces, and part of continuous regulatory expansion of the EU.
Anyway, once proposed by each Member State, and approved by the selected President, the confirmation hearings are the next step.
Between November 4th and November 12th there will be the confirmation hearings.
Which could actually generate some fireworks- but you can look it live online, the schedule is public.
Will I watch all the hearings? Well, probably- while working on preparing some publications.
If you were to give just a quick read to the material provided by each commissioner-candidate, probably the Q&A would be more interesting than either the CV or the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
It would be tempting to compare answers- but, frankly, being prepared statements, makes more sense to look at the actual "performances" during confirmation hearings.
The next article should appear online after the actual confirmation process is completed: but would be interesting, for once, to see a real debate, instead of a minuet of canned statements, a ritual.
As I wrote in previous articles, "what's next" is something closer to what the AI model I questioned by giving as a point of reference correctly stated: we need a blueprint for the European Union of the late 2020s (and at least up to the 2050s), not yet another piling up of tinkering measures decoupled from the reality that is unfolding outside the European Union.
Let's see if some ideas will fly during the confirmation hearings (or as a side-effect).
For now, stay tuned!