Convention on the Future of Europe - The Irish Times debate: The start of a weekly series of mini-debates on issues arising at the convention.
YES says John Bruton:
The European Commission has the sole power to initiate European legislation. In a democracy all power should come from the people. I want the people of Europe directly to elect the president of the commission so that every voter has a say in the direction Europe takes.
The people of Europe should be able to change the government of Europe in the same way that the people of Ireland can change the government of Ireland. At European election time, the most the average voter can now hope to change is one MEP out of 700. Voters cannot change the course of European history, so it is no surprise that they become sceptical and alienated.
An elected president of the commission would have limited but important powers that would be laid down in the constitution. He/she might select vice-presidents, but the rest of the commissioners would still be chosen in the present way. He would have the powers, already granted by the Nice Treaty, to allocate portfolios and remove bad or ineffective commissioners. These are important powers, sufficiently important only to be exercised by someone who has been elected.
The commission would still have to have its legislation agreed by both the Council of Ministers and parliament, so national governments and MEPs would still have the right to stop an unwise initiative of an elected commission president.
But the commission president, if he or she is to give leadership in Europe, should be politically independent of both the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Therefore all three institutions should have an electoral mandate. These mandates should be separate from one another but that balance is vital.
Some might argue that, because the commission president would have only limited constitutional power, he should not be directly elected. I would put it the other way around. Before you give any office-holder political power, he/she should first be elected! After all, the European Parliament only acquired most of its present powers, after it had become directly elected.
Others might claim that we do not need directly to elect the commission president because we elect our national governments and they can represent us. National governments are elected because of their domestic policies, not their European policies. Most of what national ministers subsequently decide in the Council of Ministers is not even mentioned in national election campaigns. To have an electoral say in European policies, we must elect someone to an exclusively European office - like the president of the commission.
Many MEPs would prefer that they, not the voters, select the president of the commission. This is a bad proposal because it would make the president of the European Commission politically dependent on a European Parliament majority.
That would destroy the separation of powers between Commission, council, parliament and court, which has been the key to Europe's success.
Some fear that an elected commission president would always come from one of the bigger countries, because they have more voters. The opposite is more likely. I believe that voters would back candidates on the basis of their policies, not their nationality.
Of course, in choosing vice-presidential running mates, a candidate would try to cover different linguistic, geographical and cultural bases across Europe. Language would not be a barrier. Most Europeans have a good understanding of the policies of Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac, even when they are not addressing them in their national tongue! Europe is at a crossroads. An elected commission president would give voters a say in the direction it takes.
John Bruton TD is a former Taoiseach and member of the Praesidium on the Convention on the Future of Europe.
NO argues Pat Carey:
One of the most crucial tasks the European Convention faces is "bringing Europe closer to its citizens". If this is to be more than an empty slogan, we must find ways through which the institutions of the EU and its people can better connect.
Ireland continues to favour a strong commission. Since the foundation of the union, the commission has been the protector of the common interest and has prevented a situation whereby the views of the larger member-states automatically prevail.
Yet, unfortunately, it is often the institution with which the people of Europe least identify. It is not seen to be democratically accountable. It is not appointed in an open and transparent manner. It lacks the democratic legitimacy and authority to which it ought to be entitled.
I share the widespread view at the convention that a move towards electing the president of the commission can help address this democratic deficit. It can also help to strengthen and underpin the commission's position. To that extent, John Bruton and I are in total agreement.
Various suggestions have been made as to how this might be achieved.
Some propose that the president be elected by the European Parliament - either by a simple or a "super" majority. I can see the proposal's merits, but also its potential pitfalls. There must be a risk that, unless appropriate safeguards were in place, the president's independence would be compromised through becoming hostage to a partisan majority in the parliament.
Others, notably John Bruton, have proposed a direct election, allowing the citizens of Europe to make this important choice. The attractions of this approach are obvious.
But, frankly, I have serious doubts about how meaningful such an exercise would be at this time.
I do not believe that the necessary European "body politic" exists to make this a credible democratic exercise. I can think of few names that would capture the imagination of an electorate stretching from Vilnius to Valentia. To quote the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen: "It may well be that this is an idea ahead of its time".
That is why I support the third way proposed by Dick Roche - an electoral college which brings together representatives both of the national parliaments of member-states and of the European Parliament.
The dual nature of the union, as a union of member-states and of people, would be properly reflected.
The process of election would be visible and accessible to the public. I see no reason, for example, why candidates would not tour capitals to make their pitch. The involvement of national parliaments would also better reflect the diversity of the union which gives it its vitality.
There is a debate to be had about how it might work in detail. How would each component be represented? Would the "college" meet, or would it vote electronically? How might candidates be nominated - by a minimum number of member-states? By a minimum percentage of MEPs? These are interesting questions to which we should turn our collective minds.
It is not yet clear at the convention which of the many proposals will win out. But, whatever system we eventually agree, it seems a racing certainty that we will recommend a move away from the smoke-filled rooms and into the purer air of democratic election.
Any of the current proposals, if properly organised, could help bring Europe closer to its citizens. There is absolutely no question in my mind that that can only be a good thing.
Pat Carey is a Fianna Fáil TD for Dublin North West and a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe.