Critically analyse the role of the European Commission in the First (EC) Pillar of the EU. Illustrate your essay with specific examples.

This question requires an examination of the European Commission in relation to the First Pillar. To begin, a brief description of the institutions of the European Commission and the First Pillar will be necessary. This will be followed by an analysis of the democratic nature of the European Commission. Following this, the failure of the Commission to successfully implement a ‘social Europe’ in First Pillar areas will be examined and explained. Next an analysis of Common Agriculture, the most contentious First Pillar policy will be identified. Another area that shows the failings of the Commission in this area is Asylum and Immigration and this will be tackled finally.
The European Commission’s own website seeks to provide a definition of what its role is. It describes its main responsibilities, ‘The Commission is independent of national governments. Its job is to represent and uphold the interests of the European Union (EU) as a whole…Implementing it policies, running its programmes and spending its funds.’ Newsweek, in fact, described the Commission as, ‘the widely distrusted executive that steers the European Union.’ The Commission serves for a 5 year term and is made up of representatives sent from the member countries, but who represent and work for the interests of the EU itself. The Commission has four explicit roles. Firstly, the Commission draws up all proposals for legislation. After this, it is also responsible for the management and implementation of policies and budget. Alongside the Court of Justice, its third role is to enforce EU law. Its final purpose is to negotiate outside the EU with other member states. The Maastricht Treaty 1993 created the commission and the pillar system. Three pillars were created; European Communities, Common foreign and security policy and Police and the Judiciary. The first one, European Communities, focuses on agriculture, competition, health, the environment, social policy, asylum and immigration. The most important aspect of the pillar system was that this first pillar was the only one of the three that could act unilaterally without the co-operation of national governments. Therefore, the European Commission is responsible for policy, and its implementation, and the first pillar is a section of the EU dealing with the above policy areas.
The most of its aired criticism of the European Commission is its lack of apparent democratic validity. The Nation is one of many publications in England that has attacked the European Union, in this example focusing on the make up of the Commission, ‘Neither the President of the EC nor any of the commissioners who wield the most power in the EU, are elected. They are selected in rounds of horse trading by national governments on the basis of political patronage. Indeed, the European Parliament, the only directly elected component of the EU, cannot even initiate legislation.’ As mentioned above, First Pillar policy areas (with the exception of Asylum and immigration) are totally free from the influence of national Government’s. In the pages of The Ecologist former Labour Party Cabinet Member and Parliamentarian Peter Shore argued against this, ‘It is an unhappy but barely recognised truth that the policies as well as the laws of our land are now increasingly written, not by the UK Parliament, but by the Commission officials in Brussels.’ In looking at the reasons for the rightward turn in the policies of the Commission John Foster also concluded that a lack of democracy was to blame, ‘The European Commission still retains the right to initiate, frame and implement EU legislation. There are currently 25 commissioners. Only 6 come from Social Democratic parties, one of these is Peter Mandelson!’
When he first became Commission President in 1985 Jacques Delors argued that the role of his Commission was to enshrine the recognised European social democratic ‘social model’, but implement increased liberal economic reforms, ‘The competition that will be developed by the larger market will also promote cooperation. And like competition and cooperation, liberalization and harmonisation will go together creating the conditions for a new regulation of the totality.’ A 1994 White Paper shows the mix when it outlines the priorities, ‘Democracy and individual rights, free collective bargaining, the market economy, equality of opportunity for all and social welfare and solidarity.’ However, this process is largely agreed to have failed, with moderately successful liberal economic policies apparently canceling out any opportunity of the social democratic counter weight to US policy originally envisaged. French publication Le Monde Diplomatique concluded precisely this, ‘The reality behind these seemingly innocuous liberal phrases? Renegotiation of all work related social right, docking employee’s earnings…and eventually reducing social security to the bare minimum required for subsistence.’ There are some exceptions. In the area of social liberalism Commission policies such as civil partnerships show the Commission engineering social democratic policy. The Advocate reported, ‘The push for gay marriage and greater social equality is largely being driven by the European Commission.’ However analysts suggest that these are merely fig-leafs to entice the left-of-centre to support Europe, ‘The draft constitution for the EU that was rejected by the French and Dutch voters in Spring 2005 included a paragraph on the European Social Model, while at the same time giving monetary restraint and budgetary austerity.’ Equally policies such as water privatisation have led to calls that a social Europe has failed. One report into this policy concluded, ‘This shows that the EU’s priority is market access, not development cooperation. There is little evidence that such investment in trade can lead to poverty alleviation.’ However, the extent to which the Commission dictates on this is still limited whilst nation states control tax and spend policy. Despite holding to neo-liberal social welfare policy the UK government rejected a call from the Commission to curtail public spending at no more than 37.3 per cent of output. Then Chancellor, Gordon Brown replied, ‘We cannot accept and we will not accept the European Commission’s recommendations in the broad economic policy guidelines…This investment is right for Britain and it is right for Europe.’
Common Agriculture is one of the most contentious areas that falls under the jurisdiction of the European Commission’s First Pillar. The European Commission’s Common Agricultural Policy is a system of subsidies paid to EU farmers. Its purpose is to guarantee minimum levels of agricultural production, in order to ensure that Europeans have enough food to eat, and to ensure a fair standard of living for those dependent on agriculture. Of the European Union’s total budget of sixty billion pounds this single policy accounts for half at thirty billion. In an assessment of the European Commission’s Common Agricultural Policy The Guardian attacked the results of the policy of subsidies, ‘The annual income of an EU dairy cow exceeds that of half the world’s human population… the subsidies [also] cause overproduction.’ Continuing their assessment they highlight the misnomer that a policy seeking to guarantee an equitable living for those working in an economically deprived sector, ends up rewarding larger richer businesses, ‘Small farmers account for about 40 per cent of EU farms, but receive only 8 per cent of available subsidies from Brussels.’ The trade policy adviser to the charity Oxfam has also criticised the actions of the European Commission in this sector. She argues, ‘Not only does the CAP hit European shoppers in their pockets, but strikes a blow against the heart of development in places like Africa.’ To corroborate her findings it is highlighted that Mozambique has the natural resources to provide sugar for the whole of Africa, yet as a result of the actions of the Commission loses more than seventy million pounds a year, equal to its entire domestic budget for agriculture and rural development. Godfrey concludes, ‘The CAP lavishes subsidies on the UK’s wealthiest farmers and biggest landowners at the expense of millions of the poorest farmers in the developing world.’
Asylum and immigration is another section of the First Pillar that creates great attention. Asylum and immigration falls under the sphere of the First Pillar of the Commission however, states like Denmark and the United Kingdom have certain opt outs that preserve a greater degree of national sovereignty. This is another example of an area where the European Social Model is accused of failing, being accused of being too soft of one side and not social democratic by those at the other end of the political spectrum. Human Rights charity Amnesty International reported on the Commission’s asylum policy, ‘As we move towards the final stage of this area of the EU Common Asylum Policy, it is evident that the overall picture is a bleak one for refugees fleeing to Europe.’ Steve Peers also conducted a critical overview of the Commission’s asylum and immigration policy. On the issue of removal and extradition to face trial Peers argued, ‘The Commission has not considered that the European Commission on Human Rights, in certain cases, prevents removal to face an unfair trial.’ However, the political right in the nation states is equally unimpressed with the Commission. Conservative UK newspaper the Daily Mail attacked the policy, ‘Thousands of unemployed asylum seekers granted sanctuaries elsewhere in the EU can move to Britain and claim free council housing.’ When looking at the issue, social democratic commentator Rod Liddle agreed citing the problem as, ‘…the EU and Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and all the other pressure groups and lobbyists and the enormous, suffocating weight of national and international law commanding us to let them in.’
The European Commission is the structure within the EU that proposes and enforces legislation in the group of policy areas on which it overrides national governments; known as the First Pillar. Examining the Commission the arguments that it has a democratic deficit are most compelling. Jacques Delors claimed that the Commission would ensure a ‘social model’ for Europe and that whilst ensuring certain basic liberal economic reforms, would guarantee basic traditional social democratic rights. However, the increase of liberal reforms was directly proportional to the decrease in a social model in the First Pillar policy areas. Policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy highlight the failure, as policies intended to decrease poverty, actually serve to increase it. The contentious area of Asylum and Immigration also highlights this, as it shows the extent to which in attempting to apply policies of the right, whilst incorporating left support, the Commission and the EU has been a target of attack from both ends of the political spectrum. In the final analysis, a democratic deficit in the European Commission means that in the First Pillar policy arena the ‘social model’ is failing.