The EU’s only elected body has challenged the Commission over its right to call it to account over fraud and mismanagement, and has shown that it means business That is a significant change in the politics of Europe.. In April scrutiny of the 1997 accounts begins.Significantly, the European Commission has had to accept the importance of the parliament, and for the first time there is a procedure to investigate complaints against commissioners.While the parliament may have gained no new powers, whatever the committee decides, MEPs have acquired something more important: political leverage. Mr Santer also promised an eight-point clean-up plan, including codes of conduct to crack down on nepotism and cronyism.At about the same time the issue which sparked the row – the parliament’s refusal to sign off the 1996 EU accounts – will return. Mr Cox, a central player in last week’s events, described the outcome as a “crab-like” step on the road to democratic accountability.The main concession is a committee of four wise persons, two nominated by the parliament, two by the Commission. It will study the allegations of “fraud mismanagement and nepotism”, including claims against Ms Cresson and Mr Marin. They will report by 15 March with the firm understanding in the minds of MEPs that, if commissioners are found culpable, heads will roll.

The president of the European Parliament, Jose-Maria Gil-Robles, argued that power had “shifted”.But has it, and how will the events of the week change the behaviour of the Commission?In fact the shift is a subtle one, because the events of last week centred on an elaborate power play. It had been, she said, a “historic moment in terms of the balance between the parliament and the Commission”. Even Pauline Green, leader of the largest group, the Socialists, which had initially wanted to protect the Commission, conceded that it was “damaged”.Ms Green, like several parliamentarians, was sure of another thing too. Worse, its traditional allies, the German Christian Democrats, defected.In the words of Pat Cox, leader of the third largest group of MEPs, the Liberal Democrats, the Commission suffered “a self-induced collapse in its credibility”.

One MEP responded: “What’s the point of offering a group of wise men when we want blood?”In the event the parliament recorded its highest censure vote against the Commission, twice that which followed the BSE crisis. When Tory MEPs met Sir Leon Brittan, vice president of the European Commission, he asked them to back a concession: a committee to investigate the allegations. Not only would the chaos have been a gift to Euroscepticism, but also most of the public finds it hard to distinguish between them and the Commission. In an atmosphere of crisis, MEPs engaged in frenzied meetings as the leaders of the parliament’s political groups wrangled over the fine print of the next day’s voting.

As head of a body which prides itself on collegiality he would rather resign, Mr Santer said, than face a motion singling out individual commissioners. Bluff or not, it was little short of an imminent threat to quit.For the parliament, bringing down the Commission would almost certainly have proved a mistake, one which would have rebounded on MEPs. So when Mr Santer and his team flew from a meeting in Bonn to Strasbourg, they knew that the hour of truth was approaching. But it was on Tuesday night last week that Mr Santer dropped a bombshell.