The strained relationship of the Hungarian government with
the EU makes this question very interesting. Are turf wars being fought? How
will the new Hungarian commissioner fit into the team? How will he perform?
Will this mean something to Hungary? The topic is also good to give rise to
some remarks on the sidelines about the structure of the new commission and
about other portfolio assignments.
1., Contrary to his demands Mr Navracsics did not receive
the enlargement or neighbourhood portfolio. This went to Johannes Hahn from
Austria, previously commissioner for regional policy. Given the Hungarian
government's nationalist rhetoric and recent tentatives to appease with Russia
and to slip out of sanctions, this is no surprise.
2., Thus, the message of the president, that it is not
countries but people to whom the portfolios are allocated (in plain English,
that the experience and assumed capabilities of people defined the allocation,
not the performance of their country – even, as the example of Mr Moskovici shows,
their performance in their country), may not quite be true for the Hungarian
commissioner. I will go into more detail below, it is just to mention that the
performance and lines taken by a politician in his/her own country cannot be
entirely separated from his/her capabilities and expected performance. The
"persons, not countries" approach is rather true for the French and
the British Commissioners. Although Mr Moskovici is under the coordination of
Mr Katainen, he got a weighty portfolio (see below). By the nomination of Mr
Katainen, however, according to Open Europe, a British think-tank close to the
Conservative Party (and thus not really an euro-enthusiast) " Germany has
ensured that there is a voice in favour of austerity and structural reform to
balance out the French preference for fiscal expansion." See: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/dutch-eu-nominee-wield-veto-right-over-excessive-bureaucracy-308344.
Mr Hill of Britain got the financial services (but not the internal market)
portfolio and a dedicated new directorate general will be set up. To draw
conclusions from the reorganisation (i.e. which parts of the organisation move
to this new DG), requires a separate analysis.
2., Previous gossip that he may get the trade portfolio
(although this version was quickly questioned: http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2014/09/03/the-mysterious-new-commission-organigram/)
or development (somewhat akin to the enlargement or neighbourhood portfolio he
was eyeing) did quickly subside (International Cooperation & Development
was allocated to Neven Mimica, delegated by Croatia and commissioner since
Croatia's accession, dealing with consumer protection,-separated from the
health and consumer protection portfolio for him), but the latest guess that he
may get customs also has proven wrong (customs was not, as it would have been
in this scenario, separated from taxation and both were assigned to Mr
Moskovici, to create sort of a super-portfolio of economics). Finally, he
received the "Education, Culture, Youth and Citizenship" portfolio.
3., The EU does not have too many rights in education and
culture (in federal Germany, education is not even federal, but
"Länder" competence). Mr Navracsics has no great credentials in this
area, either. The areas related to the labour market, skills, continuing and
professional education etc., have been taken over to the Belgian Commissioner, Marianne
Thyssen, to be responsible for employment, social affairs, skills and labour mobility
Some bits and pieces were added to Navracsics's portfolio: the EIT, situated in
Hungary and led by a strongly reform-minded ex education minister of Hungary
(oh, another potential controversy), who is liberal by the way while Orbán, the
Hungarian prime minister declared that he wants to build an
"illiberal" state (whatever this means), the Joint Research Centre
(with the message that the JRC has to support his activity by scientific
analysis) – but research and innovation is the portfolio of the Portuguese Carlos
Moedas - and the Publications Office (with a Director General, who is a
Luxembourger and is at the moment assigned the portfolio of Ms Reding – both
Luxembourg and the former Fundamental Rights commissioner and vice president
Reding had a controversial relationship to Hungary and vice versa). As a small
irony, he will take over part of that portfolio (although small): to manage the
communication of the Europe for Citizens Programme, and the responsibility for
the Preparatory Action “New Narrative on Europe” 2015.
4., He is mentioned in the press release as a strong point
in the Commission as an ex deputy prime minister and ex minister (which is
true) and as having extensive foreign relations experience as an ex minister of
foreign affairs – a post he occupied for some five months and this only as a
preparation for his post as commissioner. His real area as minister was law and
administration where his track record has not been dismal in technical terms
but he was part of some very controversial actions of the government (forced
retirement of judges, cutting the rights of the Constitutional Court, creation
of a mameluks' university "called Public Service University) and he was
also part of the effort to curb media freedom. Besides his personal track
record, he is a fathful member of FIDESZ, whose leader, the Hungarian prime
minister was the only besides Cameron who voted against the nomination of
Juncker as Commission president in the decisive Council meeting. If Navracsics
and Juncker want to demonstrate that in spite of all these controversies, they
can work well together, and thus avoid future controversies, may be helping the
spirit but lead to conflict-avoidance even in questions where conflict could be
productive. But having actions guided by past offences is not productive
either. There is a declared will to co-operate, at least.
5., Five years are a long time. Mr Navracsics may plan to
return to domestic politics thereafter (or try to spend another cycle as there
is a probability that his party, FIDESZ will win the 2018 elections) but to do
any of these, he has to perform in his role. To return to domestic politics,
however, he also has to be in line of the government's lukewarm attitude to the
EU. This is a contradiction in itself. He faces and even more difficult choice,
on the other hand, if we assume that the elections in 2018 bring a new
government in Hungary. The EU has not too many prerogatives in education but
reading the mission letter http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/docs/navracsics_en.pdf
we can see that there are tasks. But these are not the ones in which the
Hungarian government excelled – although independently of the influence of the
new commissioner.
He is to take part in several priority projects of president
Juncker where he will have to work under the co-ordination of several vice
presidents, among others with Andrus Ansip from Estonia (a selection where the
country is also right: Estonia is spearheading e-administration), where Hungary
just recently closed its representation. There are interesting times ahead.
See the project teams here: http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/structure/index_en.htm
Further details: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-523_en.htm
