(21 February, 2024 – Thon Hotel EU, Brussels)
Speakers:
- Simonetta Cook (Advisor, Cabinet of Charles Michel)
- Quentin Dickinson (Chief Europe Editor, EURADIO)
- Tamás Lattmann (Associate Professor, Expert on International and European Law, General Manager, C4EP)
Moderator:
- Laura Léger (Intern, C4EP)
The surprising announcement of Charles Michel’s early resignation, followed by a reversal decision two and a half weeks later, has triggered Europe’s attention, raising questions about institutional stability and political consequences within the EU. The announcement marked a significant milestone. It prompted us to closely consider the legal and constitutional procedures governing the succession of top EU officials, such as the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, or the President of the European Parliament.
An Announcement That Challenged Existing Rules
In the beginning of January, Charles Michel surprised many by announcing his intention to prematurely leave his position as early as July to focus on the European elections campaign. However, a few weeks later, after a massive political and media backlash (partly around the idea of Viktor Orbán temporarily taking over the position), he decided to step down from leading the list of the Reformist Movement (Mouvement Réformateur) in the European elections in June in Belgium, calming down the atmosphere a bit.
Tamas Lattmann started with an overview of the legal situation related to leadership positions of the EU institutions. He pointed out that leadership positions in the European Parliament are taken care of by the Parliament itself, while in the case of the Commission, this task rests with the member states, making the needed decisions about nominating a proper candidate in the European Council. It is necessary to add that one of the most important tasks of the President of the European Council is to assist these delicate political negotiations and selection processes. But in the case of the European Council, we do not have anyone to make decisions for the Council, including nominating anybody for the post – that has to be done by the Council itself. He also stated that there is a vast legal uncertainty about the President of the European Council having the possibility to step down at all. Neither the EU Treaties, nor the Rules of the Council have any provisions about it. As he argued, the relevant legal rules are either missing by accident or there is a good reason to that, and personally he may believe that the drafters of the EU Treaties has not intended to make this step possible at all – which is reinforced by the fact that even the Rules of the Council only make it possible to substitute the President with the representative of the Member State holding the rotating presidency in the case of the President being dead, not being able to do the job for health or other reasons, or being taken down by the Council itself. Resignation is not mentioned at all.
As a member of the cabinet, Simonetta Cook has admitted to not fully understanding Charles Michel’s decision, while emphasizing her trust in him. According to her, he is a very good politician, intelligent and professional. Michel is still young and has a bright career ahead of him. She noted that the announcement was somewhat a surprise to the members of the cabinet as well, but they have not had any issues with that, they were ready to handle the situation. She added that she does not completely agree with the point Tamás has made earlier about the possibility that the President should not be able to resign early (neither did Quentin), since this is not a “golden prison”. Still, after a short analysis of the provisions of the EU Treaties and of the Rules of the Council, there was an agreement between the two panelists about at least the existence of a loophole in this specific matter.
Quentin, together with Simonetta, emphasized that this position is like any other, the absence of rules should not pose a problem. As he put it, we are talking about a human being with possible personal issues, family and other life situations – this job does not require someone to be a superhero or anything similar. The conversation then went to the direction of why such a position does not have a mechanism for resignation, which has made it possible for the panelists to exchange views on responsibility and role of the different institutions.
Between Media Coverage and Public Opinion
Talking about the media backlash around the resignation, what shocked Simonetta the most was the intensity of the media coverage surrounding the announcement. The media adopted a particularly incisive and sensationalist tone, which amplified the impact of the event and contributed to an atmosphere of speculation and uncertainty. But there’s a question: was the reaction this harsh only because of the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union from July 2024, which – according to some, including Charles Michel – could have meant that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán would have gotten into this influential position after Michel’s departure? Would it have been different in the case of e.g. the Belgian Presidency?
Quentin Dickinson has reminded the audience that EU-related political matters usually do not get a big amount of attention in the media and from the general public. Intense media coverage is a clear sign that the EU is finally interesting for the media, which he considers to be a positive development. He expressed that politicians in the EU, especially in the Commission or in the Council are usually at the end of their careers, thus pre-timely termination of an office for a more desirable one is just not something that happens often. And regardless of anybody’s opinions about this phenomenon, these are part of a vivid political structure. After all, the EU is one of those – he underlined.
The questions from the audience painted an interesting picture about the forming public opinion on the situation. Someone posed a question about whether the possibility of resignation should be included in the Treaties, to make it “official”. The panelists agreed that the clearer the rules, the easier the situation – at least politically. Still, Tamas has reaffirmed that he feels comfortable with the idea of the President of the European Council not having the legal chance to resign, reflecting on Simonetta’s earlier image of a “golden prison”. He jokingly continued that under the Labour Code of many EU member states it is possible to keep someone in a fixed-term employment contract that cannot be left without possibly paying a hefty compensation to the employer (and the term of the European Council Presidency is only two and a half years), so if it is possible with ordinary people, why couldn’t it be possible with one of the top jobs with actual responsibility in Europe.
What’s next for Michel and Von der Leyen?
One question from the audience revolved around Michel’s reputation, if he will ever get another high position again with his seemingly all-time low credibility. Simonetta and Quentin argued that Michel is a prominent Belgian politician who has also served as the Prime Minister of Belgium between 2014 and 2019. Taking into account his family background, him being the son of Louis Michel, a former European Commissioner, we could also admit that he’s a “nepo baby”, so he will most probably be able to find another high-level job, even if this situation has delivered some blows to his credibility as a responsible leader.
Someone else from the audience was curious about what would have happened if Ursula von der Leyen, instead of announcing she will run again, announced that she would resign. Tamás answered by reminding the audience about the rules, based on which it is the task of the European Council to nominate a new candidate for the post and of the European Parliament to elect him/her. While in the current situation, it would be possible that none of the institutions would rush to do so, with the 2024 European elections closing in and the EU might operate without a Commission President for a short period of time while they have to elect the new one anyway. Had the resignation happened much earlier, the nomination and election of a new president should have been a priority for these institutions.