IA few days ago, the chief economist of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition enjoyed relative anonymity outside community circles. However, this is a position whose holder plays a central role in the decisions that can be taken by Margrethe Vestager, the commissioner responsible for investigating anti-competitive behavior by companies, authorizing mergers and acquisitions, but also validating state aid to the private sector. The announcement, Tuesday, July 11, of the appointment of the American Fiona Scott Morton gave this function unexpected visibility by creating a lively controversy, which Brussels could have spared itself, less than a year from the European elections.
The profile of the candidate is problematic on several counts. It is first of all strange that the Commission chose to call upon a citizen of the United States to occupy such a sensitive position within a directorate-general where the notion of sovereignty holds a central place. In principle, EU institutions are required to hire EU nationals. Deviating from this rule for such a position seems incomprehensible.
The appointment is all the more shocking as the career of Mme Scott Morton asks questions about the files on which she will have to decide. Presented as a brilliant teacher from Yale University (Connecticut), former head of the antitrust division within the United States Department of Justice, she mentions in her CV an activity of “independent consultant” which led her to advise American digital giants such as Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. So many companies that the EU scrutinizes for their anti-competitive practices and that it now subjects to a new tougher regulation.
The revealer of a certain disconnection
The European Commission argues that the US lobbyist was the “best candidate” to fill the position. That a space of twenty-seven countries with one of the most sophisticated antitrust arsenals in the world would not be able to provide talent capable of rivaling the skills of Mme Scott Morton is surprising.
The Commission tried to defuse the controversy by considering that Mme Scott Morton could be excluded for two years from files related to the companies for which she worked as a consultant. The argument suggests that there is indeed a risk of conflict of interest. Moreover, if she has to withdraw from matters that are at the heart of the European strategy on the supervision of digital, her appointment loses a good part of its justification.
That the Commission does not see the devastating effect of such a decision is indicative of a certain disconnect. Any appointment has a political dimension that Margrethe Vestager and Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the Commission, pretend to ignore. This choice can only feed Eurosceptic feelings, against an old background of anti-Americanism, which, for several days, have been unleashed.
While a few months before the end of its mandate, the Commission can congratulate itself on the work accomplished on the regulation of digital technology, it is committing a faux pas which is fueling populist reflexes on the eve of crucial European elections. The presidents of the first three political groups in the European Parliament (centrists, socialists and conservatives) are well aware of this. They call M.me Vestager to renounce this appointment. She would be well advised to listen to them.