Why not call a vote of no confidence against the European Commission?

Blog, 27/06/2023, by Sven Franck

It has always been a cliché for anti-Europeans that Brussels is too far away from citizens and reality on the ground, but currently European Institutions are making life difficult for even the most ardent pro-Europeans. As environmentalists utter a collective sigh of relief after the Nature Restoration Law has passed, everyone working in Tech is slowly turning European blue holding their collective breath.

The European Union of America?

Why? The recent appointment of Fiona Scott Morton, a former consultant for the likes of Apple, Microsoft and Amazon to become chief economist of the European Commission's Competition Directorate-General stands to be the symbolic straw that broke the back of our ambitions for digital autonomy.

As media across Europe are reporting on the Commission's refusal to reconsider its decision on the request from the main groups in the European Parliament, we should not forget to point out other recent decisions of the Commission in the digital realm: only days before the appointment, the EU-US Data Privacy Framework was hailed as new panacea for data protection. Yet, it seems to be a 1:1 copy of the Privacy Shield which the CJUE invalidated in 2021and one has to wonder whether changing a name is sufficient to address shortcomings for protecting our most sensitive data against exploitation by non-european actors. Worse, the Cyber Resilience Act is looming : based on a proposal from the European Commission that was ready to hold creators of open source software liable for damages incurred by anyone modifying or using their software, the Parliaments ITRE Committee is about to vote the final text without a debate in the plenary.

They foresee anyone accepting regular donations or any project accepting contributions from a corporate employee to be bound by the Cyber Resilience Act. The ensuing liability and requirements to provide documentation and CE label certification will likely mean the end for private developers maintaining projects, corporations sponsoring developers to maintain critical open source solutions and corporations open sourcing components for the benefit of the tech community.

Once the dust has settled, only the biggest companies being able to swallow the estimated 30% cost increase will be left. It will not be the small European open source companies contributing 65B€ to 95B€ to the European GDP. It will be Google, Amazon and Microsoft.

Europe's strength is small business - why kill them?

Open Source is not the only sector coming under the wheels of its success. Long before the European Union, car manufacturing turned from an innovative, artisanal ecosystem into a consolidated and regulated industry, with only a few bigger car makers able to afford existence. The lost innovative capacity would come handy today, as car makers in Europe struggle with a reality, no cost-cutting or touch screen will be able to remedy - Europe risks not being the continent to reinvent sustainable mobility.

The European Commission seems to follow a similar idea: whether it's local slaughterhouses closing in the early 2000s since they could not afford the investment to bring their enterprise up to par with the EU regulation on animal products for human consumption, or today's Cyber Resilience Act risking to wipe out the European open source ecosystem - we claim to be "United in Diversity'' but our institutions regulate markets so only the few, that can afford regulation, survive. If those survivors are non European entities, we accept to be not a partner on equal footing, but one that is dependent on their goodwill.

The supranational Europe used to be our strength, resulting in more innovation, better products and prices. But the current Commission seems to be bent on regulating our strength and our ecosystems of small and medium sized enterprises out of existence. Don't forget: This is the ecosystem that creates meaningful employment often outside of urban metropoles instead of reducing us to after-sales service and delivery roles. It's the ecosystem that pays taxes locally to finance our social welfare systems instead of dodging them in Ireland.

And it's our fighting chance at creating a European narrative in any of the relevant digital domains of the 21st century. Europe still hasn't found its role on the geopolitical stage and it will not be this Commission needlessly or purposefully waving a white flag at being in charge of our own narrative.

A no confidence vote can be a wake-up call

It is a shortcoming of the European Union, that the Commission instead of the Parliament as only democratically elected and legislative body has the power of legal initiative to propose laws. The Parliament only has supervisory powers, that include tabling a no confidence vote against the Commission. According to Article 17(8) of the TEU and Article 234 of the TFEU. A vote needs to be put forward by 1/10th of deputies and requires a 2/3 majority to pass. If successful, the Commission college as a body has to resign and a new Commission has to be installed until the end of the mandate.

One could argue that the time remaining in the mandate or the gravity of the recent decisions do not warrant such a motion. But they do.

The Europen elections are looming. The extreme right is pushing for dismantling Europe, and this Commission is providing the ammunition to do so. If we want a federal, more integrated Europe as an actor on the geopolitical level, the Parliament needs to show it is conscious of its role and responsibilities.

We also risk being caught between the lines and economic trenches of the US and China and would be prudent to define our own economic model sooner than later. Why not one that is based on SMEs instead of global juggernauts. One that values open source and sharing of knowledge over extracting profits. An economic model that nourishes the diversity and innovative potential of small businesses to propose European solutions to not only cloud computing and artificial intelligence but also in other domains. An economic model that is more resilient to geopolitical challenges and capable of adapting.

There is much potential in Europe, but we need a Commission that turns this potential into how we as Europeans would like to shape our own future in Europe and beyond. Appointing Fiona Scott Morton shows that the Commission is following its own agenda. It can be the straw that broke Europe’s back at achieving digital autonomy. But it can also be a wake-up call and rallying cry for European citizens and their elected representatives in the European Parliament to demand a different Commission more willing and capable to answer to our interests and the challenges of our time.