Employment conditions: EU new top jobs

The Lisbon Treaty created the new top posts of the President of the European Council, the “double-hatted” High Representative and the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union.

Implementing the treaty required decisions on the pay and perks of the new office-holders.

The decisions concerning the conditions of employment have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).



Lisbon Treaty

As always, we have to start with the Lisbon Treaty, in this case Article 243 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/155):

Article 243 TFEU
(ex Article 210 TEC)

The Council shall determine the salaries, allowances and pensions of the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Members of the Commission, the Presidents, Members and Registrars of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the Secretary-General of the Council. It shall also determine any payment to be made instead of remuneration.

President of the European Council




Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the President of the European Council (2009/909/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/35.


Here is the substance of the decision:

Article 1

1. The provisions of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967 which apply to the President of the Commission shall apply by analogy to the President of the European Council.

2. The basic monthly salary of the President of the European Council shall be equal to the amount resulting from application of 138 % to the basic salary of an official of the European Union at grade 16 third step.

High Representative




Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (2009/910/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/36.


This is what the decision tells us:

Article 1

1. The provisions of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967 which apply to Members of the Commission, including those applicable to Vice-Presidents of the Commission, shall apply by analogy to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

2. By derogation from Article 2(1) of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967, the basic monthly salary of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall be equal to the amount resulting from application of 130 % to the basic salary of an official of the European Union at grade 16 third step.

Secretary-General



Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union (2009/912/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/38.


The decision concerning the Secretary-General is lengthier:

Article 1

The Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union shall receive a basic salary equivalent to that of an official of the European Union at grade 16 third step multiplied by 100 %. He or she shall receive the family allowances and other allowances provided for in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

He or she shall also be entitled to arrangements for the reimbursement of expenses and for social security fixed by analogy with those provided for in the Staff Regulations and Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall apply to him or her by analogy.


Article 2

The remuneration referred to in the first paragraph of Article 1 shall be subject to the weighting determined by the Council pursuant to Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for officials employed in Belgium.


Article 3

The Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union shall be entitled to a residence allowance fixed in accordance with Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2290/77 of 18 October 1977 determining the emoluments of the members of the Court of Auditors, and to pension arrangements and a transitional allowance in the case of termination of service fixed by analogy with those provided for in that Regulation.


Article 4

Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the European Communities shall apply to the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union.


Article 5

Except where otherwise stated in this Decision, Articles 11 to 14 and Article 17 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and all the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, with the exception of Article 52 thereof, shall apply to the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union.

Good governance?


From a bureaucratic point of view, it makes sense to tie in the new top jobs with existing ones. Once the salary and other emoluments have been pegged, they rise with the tide, without the need for separate decisions. This is an example of simplification.

If we include communication to the citizens of the European Union in the criteria of good public governance, these decisions are disasters.

On their own, the decisions are incomprehensible for the citizen. As far as I know, the Council has issued no explanatory information to bridge the gap.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Growing, multilingual Bloggingportal.eu now aggregates 494 euroblogs. Blogs on EU affairs and policies can gain visibility, credibility and readers by joining our common European “village well” for facts, opinion and gossip. Click on Contribute to propose a new blog.

Bloggingportal.eu is looking for voluntary editors to tag blog posts and to select the best to the Home page.

European Council 10 to 11 December 2009: Lisbon Treaty implementation

Our previous blog post Implementing the Lisbon Treaty (Swedish report) (9 December 2009) gave an overview of implementing decisions already officially published, as well as Grahnlaw posts, which present these decisions, with comments.



There has been some progress since 4 December 2009, when the Swedish presidency of the EU Council published its report Implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon (document 17033/1/09 REV 1) for the European Council meeting 10 to 11 December 2009.


Officially published

Today, five implementing Council decisions have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the primordial source of EU law and politics (OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322).

Before presenting the contents of the decisions and commenting on them, here are the references:




Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down measures for the implementation of the European Council Decision on the exercise of the Presidency of the Council, and on the chairmanship of preparatory bodies of the Council (2009/908/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/28.


***



Council Decision of 1 December 2009 appointing the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union (2009/911/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/37.


***



Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the President of the European Council (2009/909/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/35.


***




Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (2009/910/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/36.


***



Council Decision of 1 December 2009 laying down the conditions of employment of the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union (2009/912/EU), published OJEU 9.12.2009 L 322/38.


***

Awaiting official publication

The Council Decision adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure (document 16525/09) has not yet been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, and for some reason I failed to locate the Council document despite the reference.

I have seen no reason for the delay in publishing the Council’s Rules of Procedure in the OJEU, but it is a long document and it needs to be published in 23 official languages.


***

From references to comments

Later posts will look at the contents of the implementing decisions, although more curious readers can look for themselves.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Growing, multilingual Bloggingportal.eu now aggregates 494 euroblogs. Blogs on EU affairs and policies can gain visibility, credibility and readers by joining our common European “village well” for facts, opinion and gossip. Click on Contribute to propose a new blog.

Catherine Ashton High Representative of the (European) Union (official decision)

The political EU freaks have watched the preliminary grilling by the European Parliament of Baroness Ahston, but your humble blog servant has been looking for official references, useful for students mindful of their importance in academia, at least until achieving guru status.

New High Rep

Article 1 of the decision by the European Council says it like this:

Baroness Catherine Margaret ASHTON OF UPHOLLAND is hereby appointed High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for the period from 1 December 2009 until the end of the current term of office of the Commission.



Here is the official decision:

EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION taken with the agreement of the President of the Commission
of 1 December 2009 appointing the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (2009/880/EU), published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU 2.12.2009 L 315/49).


HR’s tasks

The bare essentials of the High Representative’s tasks are presented in Article 27 TEU (in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/32):

Article 27 TEU

1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who shall chair the Foreign Affairs Council, shall contribute through his proposals towards the preparation of the common foreign and security policy and shall ensure implementation of the decisions adopted by the European Council and the Council.

2. The High Representative shall represent the Union for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy. He shall conduct political dialogue with third parties on the Union's behalf and shall express the Union's position in international organisations and at international conferences.

3. In fulfilling his mandate, the High Representative shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. This service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States and shall comprise officials from relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic services of the Member States. The organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service shall be established by a decision of the Council. The Council shall act on a proposal from the High Representative after consulting the European Parliament and after obtaining the consent of the Commission.

***


Naturally, the European Union does not let matters rest there. More detailed provisions are crafted with regard to the interaction between the EU’s new chief diplomat, the member states and the EU institutions.

We have mentioned the approved guidelines earlier. A final proposal is expected next spring.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 488 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page or concentrate on the editors’ choice of articles on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

Van Rompuy and Ashton jobs: State of the European Union?

Few questions have attracted as much comment in the Eurosphere as the (s)election of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton to the new top jobs of the European Union under the Lisbon Treaty. Between deep despair, vitriol and angelic official optimism, few emotional notes have been missed. Is there any sense in adding to the virtual deforestation the nominations have caused on the web?

Perhaps.

The proof of the pudding will come in two and a half years for the president of the European Council, Van Rompuy, and in five years for the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Baroness Ashton, who will also be vice-president of the EU Commission.

However, not content to wait that long, we may want to take a glimpse at the future through the eyes of a few cooler heads, experts in European affairs.



Antonio Missiroli



Two cheers and one lesson for the EU, by Antonio Missiroli (European Policy Centre EPC, 23 November 2009; 2 pages) is a short commentary, which starts by saying that the choice of Van Rompuy is fully in line with the profile drawn (albeit vaguely) in the treaty.

The appointment of Ashton was more unexpected, but despite her relative inexperience she could grow in and on the job.

The European Union does not achieve a single telephone number, but rather has a Brussels-based switchboard, a new system which may need some time to take root and shape.

The nomination debate, kicked off by the ‘spin’ offensive launching Tony Blair, and the procedure left much to be desired.

Next time, in 2014, the institutional profiles, the political rationale and the procedure must be thought out in advance. Personalities matter and public opinion has shown great interest. The European Council can still appoint its ‘chairman’, but the main Europarties should publicly nominate candidates for Commission president and HR/VP. This would enhance the democratic legitimacy of the choices.


***

Piotr Maciej Kaczynski and Peadar o Broin



Piotr Maciej Kaczyński & Peadar ó Broin have written an analysis, Two new leaders in search of a job description (Centre for European Policy Studies, CEPS Policy Brief No. 200/25 November 2009; 4 pages), where they describe the posts of the president of the European Council and the high representative/vice-president as outlined by the Lisbon Treaty.

The authors note the risk that the president and the rotating Council presidency may clash, but the permanent president is also supposed to drive forward the work of the European Council. The prerogatives of the permanent president need to be more precisely defined in the Rules of Procedure of the European Council, due to be adopted in December.

The new powers of the “double-hatted” HR/VP and the sharing of responsibilities for EU external relations raise a number of critical institutional questions.

The discussion of the points to be settled offers a good background to the decisions to be taken by the European Council 10 to 11 December 2009. The table at the end presents a clear overview of a muddy situation: the external representation of the European Union. (‘differ’ in point 6 should be read ‘defer’, I presume)

***

European integration is not a mausoleum, but a building site. Both papers have the merit of preparing the ground for future debate and decisions.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself; there are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

EU Lisbon Treaty implementation: European diplomatic service EEAS

At this stage, the second basic document regarding Lisbon Treaty implementation is the report on guidelines for the future European diplomatic service, more exactly the European External Action Service (EEAS). The member states started work on the EEAS without waiting for a proposal from the High Representative.

Now that the HR has been (s)elected, the invitation to present a formal (detailed) proposals lies waiting for Catherine Ashton.




The presidency conclusions of the European Council 29 to 30 October 2009 (document 15265/09) had this to say about the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty (point 3, page 2):

“The European Council --- It endorses the Presidency's report on guidelines for the European External Action Service (doc. 14930/09) and invites the future High Representative to present a proposal for the organisation and functioning of the EEAS as soon as possible after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with a view to its adoption by the Council at the latest by the end of April 2010. In this context, it also recognises the need, as underlined in the European Security Strategy, for the European Union to become more capable, more coherent and more strategic as a global actor, including in its relations with strategic partners, in its neighbourhood and in conflict-affected areas.”

***


EEAS report



The Presidency report to the European Council on the European External Action Service (23 October 2009, document 14930/09) comprises 34 points on 10 pages.

In this blog post, we are content to quote the last point (34) on the way forward, which offers an overview of the following stages of implementation:

WAY FORWARD

34. There will be several stages before reaching the final shape of the EEAS. The Council will be fully involved throughout the whole process.

• A first stage from the entry into force of the Treaty to the adoption of the Council decision on the organisation and functioning of the EEAS. The HR should submit his/her proposal with a view to it being adopted at the latest by the end of April 2010. For that reason it is of key importance that preparatory work should continue at full speed within the current format in the run up to the entry into force of the Treaty. From the start, as well as having the immediate support of the external relations structures of the Commission and of the GSC, he/she will be supported by a small preparatory team which should be composed of representatives of Member States, Commission and GSC. In parallel to preparations for that decision, work must be carried out to make the relevant adaptations in existing rules, such as the Staff and Financial Regulations with a view to their adoption at the same time as the Council decision on the organisation and functioning of the EEAS. Close contacts with the European Parliament should be continued during this stage.

• A second stage for setting up the EEAS, from the adoption of the Council decision to full cruising speed. A first status report should be made in 2012.

• When the EEAS has been functioning for some time at full speed, there should be a review of the functioning and organisation of the EEAS followed, if necessary, by a revision of the decision. This review should also cover the scope of the EEAS, including delegations' role in consular affairs. Such a review should take place in 2014.

***


Legal base


The legal base, which is mentioned in the presidency report, is Article 27(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), but we take the opportunity to quote the whole Article 27 TEU, which offers an outline of the tasks of the newly elected high representative (OJEU 9.5.2008 c 115/32):

Article 27 TEU


1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who shall chair the Foreign Affairs Council, shall contribute through his proposals towards the preparation of the common foreign and security policy and shall ensure implementation of the decisions adopted by the European Council and the Council.

2. The High Representative shall represent the Union for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy. He shall conduct political dialogue with third parties on the Union's behalf and shall express the Union's position in international organisations and at international conferences.

3. In fulfilling his mandate, the High Representative shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. This service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States and shall comprise officials from relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic services of the Member States. The organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service shall be established by a decision of the Council. The Council shall act on a proposal from the High Representative after consulting the European Parliament and after obtaining the consent of the Commission.

***

Formidable challenges lie in wait for the EU’s chief diplomat, Catherine Ashton.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

EU High Representative’s tasks & EEAS

The European Council has selected Catherine Ashton, and she has accepted a huge challenge as the first ”double-hatted” EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy and vice-president of the EU Commission.



Here is how the Council’s background paper explains the duties of EU’s chief diplomat and the European External Action Service (EEAS):



The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy /
The European External Action Service

November 2009


EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

At the informal meeting in Brussels on 19 November, ahead of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December, EU Heads of State or Government agreed on the appointment of Ms Catherine ASHTON as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.


What are her duties?

The High Representative exercises, in foreign affairs, the functions which, so far, were exercised by the six-monthly rotating Presidency, the High Representative for CFSP and the Commissioner for External Relations. According to Articles 18 and 27 of the Treaty on the European Union, the High Representative:

• conducts the Union's common foreign and security policy;

• contributes by her proposals to the development of that policy, which she will carry out as mandated by the Council, and ensures implementation of the decisions adopted in this field;

• presides over the Foreign Affairs Council;

• is one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission. She ensures the consistency of the Union's external action. She is responsible within the Commission for responsibilities incumbent on it in external relations and for coordinating other aspects of the Union's external action.

• represents the Union for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy, conduct political dialogue with third parties on the Union's behalf and expresses the Union's position in international organisations and at international conferences.

• exercises authority over the European External Action Service and over the Union delegations in third countries and at international organisations.


How will she be appointed?

The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the Commission, appoints the High Representative.

She is subject, together with the President of the Commission and the other members of the Commission, to a vote of consent by the European Parliament.


Supporting arrangements

In fulfilling her mandate, the High Representative is assisted by a European External Action Service (see below). She benefits from support from the Council and Commission services as appropriate.


Before the Treaty of Lisbon

The previous office of High Representative for the common foreign and security policy was introduced in 1999 (Amsterdam Treaty). Javier Solana has been the EU High Representative for CFSP since then. He assists the Council in foreign policy matters, through contributing to the formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions. He acts on behalf of the Council in conducting political dialogue with third parties. The six-monthly rotating Presidency has been in charge of chairing the External Relations Council, representing the Union in CFSP matters, implementing the decisions taken and for expressing the EU position internationally.


European External Action Service

Article 27(3) TEU constitutes the legal basis for the Council decision on the organisation and functioning of the EEAS.

“In fulfilling his mandate, the High Representative shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. This service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States and shall comprise officials from relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic services of the member states. The organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service shall be established by a decision of the Council. The Council shall act on a proposal from the High Representative after consulting the European Parliament and after obtaining the consent of the Commission.”

On 30 October 2009, the European Council agreed on guidelines for the European External Action Service (EEAS) (doc. 14930/09). The future HR was invited to present a proposal for the organisation and functioning of the EEAS as soon as possible after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, with a view to its adoption by the Council at the latest by the end of April 2010.


What is the EEAS?

According to the guidelines adopted by the European Council in October 2009, the EEAS will be a single service under the authority of the High Representative. The EEAS will have an organisational status reflecting and supporting the High Representative's unique role and functions in the EU system.


What will it do?

The EEAS will help the High Representative ensure the consistency and coordination of the Union's external action as well as prepare policy proposals and implement them after their approval by Council. It will also assist the President of the European Council and the President as well as the Members of the Commission in their respective functions in the area of external relations and will ensure close cooperation with the Member States. The EEAS should be composed of single geographical (covering all regions and countries) and thematic desks, which will continue to perform under the authority of the High Representative the tasks currently executed by the relevant parts of the Commission and the Council Secretariat. Trade and development policy as defined by the Treaty should remain the responsibility of relevant Commissioners of the Commission.


How will it be staffed?

EEAS staff will be appointed by the High Representative and drawn from three sources: relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council, of the Commission and of national diplomatic services of the Member States. Recruitment will be based on merit, with the objective of securing the services of staff of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, while ensuring adequate geographical balance.


Crisis management structures

In order to enable the High Representative to conduct the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the EU's crisis management structures should be part of the EEAS while taking full account of their specificities. These structures will form an entity placed under the direct authority and responsibility of the High Representative.


What will be its legal status?

The EEAS should be a service of a sui generis nature, separate from the Commission and the Council Secretariat. It should have autonomy in terms of administrative budget and management of staff. The EEAS will have its own section in the EU budget, to which the usual budgetary and control rules will apply. The High Representative will propose and implement the EEAS budget.


How will it be financed?

The establishment of the EEAS will be guided by the principle of cost efficiency and aimed towards budget neutrality. A limited number of additional posts for Member States' temporary agents will probably be necessary, to be financed within the framework of the current financial perspectives.


EU Delegations

The Commission's delegations will become Union delegations under the authority of the High Representative and will be part of the EEAS structure. Delegations will contain both regular EEAS staff (including Heads of Delegation) and staff from relevant Commission services. All staff should work under the authority of the Head of Delegation. EU delegations will work in close cooperation with diplomatic services of the Member States.. They should play a supporting role as regards diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third countries.


***


Comments


I have seen that the choice of a UK national as high representative and vice-president has been criticised by William Hague and other opposition Tories, who say that they would have preferred an economic portfolio in the EU Commission.

As I have stated before, I see the chief diplomat’s post as more important than any one economic Commissioner’s post. Admittedly, I am not trying to score points with the City of London.

On the other hand, Labour leader Gordon Brown have made a huge gamble by nominating Catherine Ashton, without much foreign policy experience, and none visible in security and defence policies, so we have to see how she will be able to master her new brief in the build-up phase of EU diplomacy under the Lisbon Treaty.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common European future.

New EU leaders ─ roundup

On the one hand, we have seen the official optimism beamed from the European Council after the choice of its new president and the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. On the other hand, both fervent Europeans and rabid anti-Europeans have commented, many critically.


Meta roundup

Here is a meta roundup, a selection roundups, for those who want quick access to various reactions.




An extensive roundup of comments can be accessed through Erkan’s Field Diary, Erkan Saka: Herman Van Rompuy, the new EU President; Baroness Ashton, the new EU Foreign Affairs Minister (20 November 2009).



A lively community debate is display on the web site of the European Tribune: Europe is doomed! Special ‘Nobodies’ Edition (20 November 2009).



Julien Frisch has brief comments and links to a number of blog comments in: Europe in blogs – Euroblogs (11): Herman Van Rompuy & Catherine Ashton (21 Novemver 2009).


Individual comments



Here are only a few of the individual comments that caught my eye. Many more would be worth highlighting, but go to Bloggingportal.eu for a more extensive look and for updates.



Jean Quatremer on Coulisses de Bruxelles was not amused, in: UE : Président pour la déco (20 November 2009) (or in the other comments on his blog).



For a thoughtful comment on the tasks ahead for the European Union and the selected leadership duo you can read, European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), Daniel Korski: Europe’s new leaders (20 November 2009).



Another quiet reflection on the chosen leaders for the European Council and EU foreign policy is offered by, European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), Ulrike Guérot: After all the horse-trading, the final two (20 November 2009).



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common European future.

EU: Van Rompuy and Ashton ticket confirmed

The Swedish presidency of the Council of the European Union confirmed the proposals circulated since early evening.

The prime minister of Belgium, Herman Van Rompuy, will become the first president of the European Council, for two and a half years.

Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, has been nominated EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. She will become vice-president of the Commission.

***

Comment

The heads of state or government reached decisions, which was important in itself.

The nominations are compromises between many competing interests. Both nominees are inexperienced in their new areas of responsibilities, but the same can be said for the system of rotating chairmanships they are going to replace, so they have the possibility to grow on the job a bit longer.

The new office-holders can start to drive forward the work of the European Union, which requires much patience in order to achieve more coherence and cohesion, internally and on the world stage.

With the Lisbon Treaty and these nominations entering into force, the European Union advances by two cautious steps.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common European future.

Those funny little foreigners in the EU

Quite irksome really, with all those funny little foreigners wanting a say on running the European Union, and not recognizing the self-evident leading role of the United Kingdom in European integration. If this continues, Britain will have to expel the rest of the EU member states to put Europe in order.

Forgive the poetic licence, but here are a few examples from the UK debate about the EU summit this Thursday evening, convened to nominate the president of the European Council and the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy.



Labour’s Europe minister Chris Bryant hit back by branding Van Rompuy a “federalist” who threatened Britain’s national interest. And he slammed shadow foreign secretary William Hague, the former Tory leader, for opposing Mr Blair’s bid; The Sun, Graeme Wilson: Germans to block Blair (19 November 2009).



A furious backlash was growing last night against the drive to anoint Euro fanatic Herman Van Rompuy as President of Europe; The Daily Express, Macer Hall: Britain ruled by a Belgian? You must be joking (18 November 2009).



The favourite to become President of the European Union is determined to replace Britain’s Union Flag and national anthem with “European symbols”; The Daily Mail, Macer Hall: EU threat to the Union Jack and the National Anthem (17 November 2009).



The gradual loss of our flag, national anthem and even licence plates matters as much as the loss of veto power under the Lisbon Treaty, for it is partly thanks to the splendidly robust symbols of British identity that we have acquired our unique character; Telegraph View: We don’t want to fly the flag for Europe (16 November 2009).



The Honeyball Buzz, Mary Honeyball, Labour MEP, patiently explains why Britain’s own Tony Blair is the only sensible choice; Crunch Day for Europe President (18 November 2009):

This mindset has led to Belgian Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy emerging as the front-runner. I hardly think Belgium is a shining example of how to run a country. A population of about 10 million is split into two linguistic groups with three federal regions, a system which is so unworkable that Belgium was recently without a federal government for nearly two years as the various parties were unable to agree on a coalition.

The other two small countries who are realistic contenders aren’t much better. Peter Balkenende from Holland verges on the Thatcherite. Luxembourg has, as ever, staked its claim. Yet can anyone take Jean-Claude Junker seriously when the entire population of Luxembourg is only 488,000. Yes 488,000 compared to over 60 million in the UK and Germany’s 82.5 million. I am tempted to use that dreadful Americanism – “give us a break!”

The Times (opinion), George Walden: A bogus, pompous, ludicrous, overpriced job (19 November 2009):

Finally there is the comic aspect. The EU is hugely sensitive about status, though careless, it appears, about its dignity. How does it expect the world to react to the sight of an unknown former politician of a medium-sized European country, let alone a Belgian or Luxemburger, junketing from capital to capital playing at being a global power? Seen that way, Ubu Roi and The Government Inspector aren’t in the same league.

***

If you live on the wrong side of the Channel, you know that your measure has been taken.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common European future.

Best EU High Representative?

Sweden’s Fredrik Reinfeldt has consulted outside the public sphere, and soon he will have to deliver. Thursday evening in Brussels, 27 heads of government or state (and José Manuel Barroso as president-elect of the EU Commission) will try to reach agreement, or at least a decision on the new top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty.

If competence and engagement in European Union affairs decide the outcome, the new president of the European Council is Jean-Claude Juncker, now prime minister of Luxembourg. The prime minister of Belgium, Herman Van Rompuy, is a newcomer on the European scene, but he is seen as a potential compromise candidate by some, who appreciate his mediating skills and his country’s long and constructive role in European integration. Latvia’s former president, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, has even less direct involvement in EU affairs, but the ongoing integration of new member states in Central Europe and gender balance have symbolic value.

Dutch premier Jan Peter Balkenende, Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves and former Finnish prime minister Paavo Lipponen are among those who have been mentioned in the discussions.

Tony Blair remains the official candidate of the UK Labour government, despite being a divisive figure in Britain as well as in the rest of the European Union.


High Representative



Yesterday, Tony Barber on the FT Brussels blog asked the rhetorical question: “Whatever happened to the idea that Europe’s top jobs should go to the best qualified candidates?”

In the blog post Massimo D’Alema: Pair of Safe Hands, or Disaster in the Making? (16 November 2009), Barber clearly came out against appointing D’Alema the new EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy.

If British media (including the FT) were really concerned with competence in EU affairs, they would strongly have endorsed the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for the European Council presidency. Instead, we have seen a steady stream of ridicule and innuendo about “Lilliputians”, even in quality media based in the UK.

Still, the question about the competence of the high representative is worth asking. Let us put it like this: Are there more qualified candidates in the running than Massimo D’Alema?

As far as we know, Downing Street 10 and David Miliband himself have ruled out the prospects of Britain’s foreign secretary (since 2007) running for the post of EU high representative.

Thus, the question can only be put with regard to other potential candidates. If Britain, France and Germany refuse to propose their best names, or any candidates, the pool of potential candidates is further diminished.

This is the power vacuum Barber mentions, and the candidature of D’Alema is one answer to fill it. What is Barber’s alternative?

In terms of personal competence, Sweden’s foreign minister Carl Bildt would probably come out on top in Europe (regardless of Miliband), so should the European Council (and Barroso) opt for him?

In my humble view, if each job was given to the “best man”, the outcome would be Jean-Claude Juncker as president of the European Council and Carl Bildt as high representative, both politically from the centre-right (European People’s Party).


Package deal

This leads to the question hard to avoid: Should our national leaders forget their joint declaration (No 6), attached to the Lisbon Treaty, that “due account is to be taken of the need to respect the geographical and demographic diversity of the Union and its Member States”?

The heads of government or state clearly stated that the two new jobs and the Commission presidency were to be decided as a package deal. They did not specifically mention political affiliation or gender, although clarity would have been preferable to obfuscation.

If we see the top jobs as a political package deal, the Commission presidency has already gone to the EPP: José Manuel Barroso. Besides, the EPP has made its man, Jerzy Buzek from Poland, president of the European Parliament (probably to be followed by a social democrat).

Is it unreasonable if the socialists want more, and the liberals and women want something before the two remaining posts are decided?

Did the process become party political and unedifying only now, Tony Barber?




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common European future.

President of the European Council & High Representative (Finland “informs”)

The government of Finland has published a press release with generalities about the extraordinary European Council on 19 November 2009 in Brussels. The text has been published in Finnish and Swedish as well as in English:

Government Communications Unit
12.11.2009 15.44

EU leaders convene to decide on the EU top nominations

Sweden, the current holder of the EU Presidency, has invited EU Heads of State or Government to an informal meeting in Brussels on 19 November 2009. Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen will represent Finland at the meeting.

President of the European Council, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt says that the purpose of the informal meeting is to decide on the nomination of the people who will fill the new top EU posts established by the Treaty of Lisbon. The EU leaders aim to agree on the nomination of a permanent President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The President will be appointed in a qualified majority vote of the European Council for two and a half years with the possibility of holding a second term of office.

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will be appointed by the European Council acting by a qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the European Commission. The High Representative’s term of office begins at the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and terminates upon the end of the term of the Commission then in office. During the preparation of the nomination of a High Representative, the European Parliament will be duly consulted. The High Representative will also be Vice-President of the European Commission.

The Lisbon Treaty is to enter into force on 1 December 2009 and the aim is to reach political agreement on the top nominations at the informal meeting. On the basis of the political agreements, the European Council and the Council of the European Union will make formal decisions after the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force. After the entry into force of the new Treaty decisions will be promptly finalised, probably by means of a written procedure, to enable the immediate start of the nominated persons in their new positions. The Swedish Presidency has announced that the High Representative will become a member of the Commission immediately after his/her appointment and the current Commissioner of his/her nationality will step down from the office.

The term of office of the current European Commission will end on 31 October 2009. The Commission can continue in office for a while without a separate decision by the Council. The Council will, in agreement with the President of the Commission, adopt a list of persons it will nominate as commissioners. The European Parliament is to finalise the appointment of the Commission and the High Representative together by a majority of the votes cast. After this, the European Council will appoint the Commission in a qualified majority vote. The Finnish Government has nominated Olli Rehn as the Finnish candidate for the membership of the next European Commission.

Further information: Jukka Salovaara, State Under-Secretary for EU Affairs, Government Secretariat for EU Affairs, tel. +358 9 1602 2182

***

Apart from a few interesting details about the nomination procedures, as you can see, the Finnish government says nothing about candidates in running or even about its preferences with regard to the president of the European Council and the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, and it does not even mention the post of the secretary-general of the Council of the European Union.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu expose the real EUSSR. Read and comment! You can also propose an interesting blog post or a whole new blog (click Contribute).

Extra European Council 19 November 2009 menu

According to the press release this morning, after an introductory round of consultations with his fellow heads of state and government, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has decided to convene an extra informal EU summit on 19 November.

Reinfeldt hopes that at the summit, agreement can be reached on the appointment of the three new top EU posts regulated in the Treaty of Lisbon. It involves a permanent President of the European Council, a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and a Secretary-General for the Council Secretariat.

The summit will take the form of a working dinner in the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels.

***

What can we expect from the working dinner in Brussels Thursday next week? Is it going to be a meal with three set courses?

There has been no information forthcoming on the real issues as yet, so we have to devise our own menu.


Menu (proposal)

Starters: President of the European Council (Absolut vodka [French-owned TM] and Belgian beer)

Main course: High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy (Italian red wine)

Dessert: Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union (discreet, but powerful digestive)


Smorgasbord?

Alternatively, Sweden could try out its specialty ‘smorgasbord’ (Swedish: smörgåsbord), which is the Nordic variety of a buffet meal, where every guest can pick and choose among the solid stuff. Combined with Swedish drinking songs and generous helpings of ‘snaps’ (shots), all leaders become brothers, as in the Ode to Joy. Consequently, the problems are solved by themselves.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The real EUSSR exposed by the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. Propose an interesting blog post or a whole new blog (click Contribute).

EU top nominations: Edifying spectacle

For the citizens of the European Union, the nominations for the top jobs is an edifying spectacle of how intergovernmentalism works in reality between ”freely cooperating, sovereign nation states”. We are spectators, offered selective leaks and plants, with scant information and no say.

Those who pine for intergovernmental cooperation should be overjoyed. Since they reject EU level democracy, they have no cause to complain when 27 heads of government or state discuss and decide behind closed doors, unable even to set a date for the decisions, much less to agree on open (s)election criteria and procedures, or information about the candidates in running for the posts.

The European Council is the electoral college, fine! This is how they have written the Lisbon Treaty, and this is how intergovernmental cooperation works.

If national sovereignty is your blanket and nationalism your pillow, sleep on. Don’t wake up to holler about people power, because you want none of it outside your home country.

Let our leaders select their president (“chairman” in several language versions of the Lisbon Treaty), their high representative for their intergovernmental foreign affairs and security policy and their secretary-general of the Council, where they continue their noble tradition of opaque dealing.

Because Sweden’s prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is a decent sort of chap, he will inform us when he and the other leaders are close enough to a deal.

The results will be published.


***

Recommended reading


While waiting for further announcements, you could read Jean Quatremer on Coulisses de Bruxelles: Président du Conseil européen: habemus papam ? (10 November 2009).



For those who are specially afflicted by incompatible views against EU level democracy and for a “strong personality”, such as The Economist’s, I recommend Honor Mahony’s blog post: Crunch time (9 November 2009).

If you still have spare time on your hands, I suggest that you look for the latest reports from Britain detailing prime minister Gordon Brown’s lose-lose determination to promote Tony Blair and refusal to nominate David Miliband. Failing intelligible explanations, mysterious forces must be at work in the Downing Street 10 bunker.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Read about the real EUSSR through the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. Propose an interesting blog post or a whole new blog (click Contribute).

Miliband out ─ D’Alema in? (Updated)

By the way of Jean Quatremer’s Coulisses de Bruxelles I noticed the latest ”sure bet” regarding the European Union’s next high representative for foreign affairs and security policy.



In Der Standard, Thomas Mayer writes that David Miliband has declined the offer to become the EU high representative: Brite Miliband sagt als EU-Außenminister ab (8 November 2009).


This may mean that the European leaders have a new situation to discuss this evening in Berlin, although fairly recent articles still tell us about lobbying for Tony Blair to become president of the European Council and of David Miliband’s chances of being appointed high representative.


Italy’s Massimo D’Alema is a candidate whose prospects look brighter.


Update 9 November 2009: According to Reuters Italia (and other news reports on the same authority), the leader of the S&D group in the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has - through a spokesman - confirmed that David Miliband has taken himself out of the race for high representative; Massimo D'Alema is now the candidate backed by the socialists and social democrats.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Read about the real EUSSR through the good, the better and the best Euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. Propose an interesting blog post or a whole new blog (click Contribute).

EU High Representative: Miliband or D’Alema?

Downing Street 10 may still be flogging the dead horse of Tony Blair’s candidacy for the post of president of the European Council, but the rest of Europe speculates mainly about the prospects of prime ministers Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium and Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands, although the liberals point out that both the Commission and the European Parliament already have presidents from the EPP family, and everyone is aware of the imminent lack of gender balance.

The outcome of the presidency (s)election is decisive for the choice of high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. If the socialists and social democrats are given the first choice, UK foreign secretary David Miliband seems to be a shoo-in, if Gordon Brown and Miliband himself quit denial mode.


David Miliband



In The New Statesman, James Macintyre finds it likely that Miliband will not opt for Brussels; in Brussels is back with a vengeance (5 November 2009).




On the other hand, on Politics.co.uk Emmeline Saunders refers to an unnamed Labour source who said that Miliband has accepted the job, although sources close to Miliband strenuously denied it; in Miliband ‘heading to Europe’ (5 November 2009).

If the UK government persists in passing this opportunity, someone else must be found. As long as the consultations by the Swedish presidency of the EU Council remain confidential, we have to look at leaks and plants.


Massimo D’Alema



Italy’s Massimo D’Alema has been mentioned as a potential choice. He is a journalist, who has served as both prime minister and foreign minister.



For those who read Italian, there is more information on D’Alema’s homepage.


Italy


D’Alema represents the centre-left Partitio Democratico in a country where Silvio Berlusconi’s right is in office.




At least officially, the Italian government supports D’Alema, as reported by La Repubblica: Ue, Berlusconi conferma sostegno “D’Alema è una candidatura forte” (5 November 2009). Prime minister Berlusconi is said to have lobbied other governments, and foreign minister Franco Frattini has reiterated his support for D’Alema.




Giulio Bolaffi analyses the present situation in Europe broadly, including the chances of D’Alema, where he sees potential problems despite the official cross-party support; in Il risiko delle nomine, le speranze di D’Alema e le negoziazioni sul clima: chi guiderà l’Europa i prossimi anni? (Gli Euros, 5 November 2009).


EU member states




For Reuters, Pete Harrison reports that D’Alema’s hopes are fading because of opposition in eastern Europe; in Miliband’s star shines in EU race (5 November 2009).




UPI reports: Diplomat opposes EU post for D’Alema (5 November 2009), referring to a Polish diplomat, who mentions possible problems with other former Warsaw Pact countries as well.




On the other hand, Corriere della Sera mentions the problems evoked by Polish ambassador Tombinski, but also the lack of explicit opposition; in D’Alema ministro degli esteri Ue: “Il suo passato sarebbe un problema” (5 November 2009).


Berlin 9 November 2009



In addition to the daily contacts between the governments of the member states, practically all the EU leaders will meet face to face in Berlin on 9 November 2009 for the festivities commemorating 20 years from the fall of the Berlin Wall (Mauerfall, Fest der Freiheit).

The festivities offer the heads of government opportunities to discuss who will fill the new top jobs in the European Union under the rules of the Lisbon Treaty.

Hopefully, the Swedish presidency of the EU Council can soon inform the public about its consultations.



Ralf Grahn




P.S. Get to know the real EUSSR through the good, the better and the best Euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu.

Finland vs Britain: Pride and Prejudice?

Take a look at Finland, a small Nordic country with a population of 5.3 million, a member of the European Union only since 1 January 1995.



Most Finns are tickled by the fact that enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn (centre party, European liberals) has been mentioned in international media as one of the candidates to become the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, and that media speculation about the president of the European Council has included former prime minister Paavo Lipponen, former president Martti Ahtisaari and current president Tarja Halonen.

The social democrats, the main opposition party, criticises the government for not doing enough to trumpet the virtues of the potential presidents (all social democrats; S&D at EP level).

The centre and centre-right government tries to play down expectations. Even if the individual candidates have real merits, Finland is but one small part of the European Union, and there are fewer offices than candidates...

In the unlikely event that a Finn would be (s)elected to one of the EU’s top jobs, most people in Finland would take some pride in their country being able to offer able candidates for international posts and for their contribution to the common good.


***

I imagine that the situation is fairly similar in most countries. There is a natural patriotism at work, not only in sports, but in other areas as well. The political class is conscious of both status and influence gained through international posts. Popular feeling and rational conduct converge, giving cause to national pride.

***

Britain



The United Kingdom has the third largest population among the EU member states (60 million), and it joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973.



Still last week, former prime minister Tony Blair, the Labour government’s candidate for the presidency of the European Council, was widely seen as a favourite, until his candidacy hit a wall. If the high representative is to be picked among European socialists and social democrats, these have rolled out the red carpet for UK foreign secretary David Miliband (but the signals from Downing Street 10 are highly contradictory, with regard to this potentially more important job).

Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, in the shape of shadow foreign secretary William Hague, has proclaimed to the EU member states that the (s)election of the Briton Blair would be a hostile act towards the conservatives (Britain). (Miliband was not in the headlines as a candidate at the time, but I have seen no supportive statements from the conservatives later.)



Practically nobody is accusing the Tories of betraying the interests of the country. On the contrary, with voting intentions at 42 per cent, the Conservative Party has a 17 point lead over Labour.

There is little popular support for a British candidate, either. According to a fresh opinion poll, 53 per cent of respondents are against the nomination of Blair and 48 per cent oppose the (s)election of Miliband (The Telegraph, 31 October 2009).

***

Pride and Prejudice?

I have repeatedly said that I understand those who oppose Tony Blair as a failed European, with a legacy of “red lines” and opt-outs. Neither did I appreciate the effort to subvert the Lisbon Treaty, by turning the chairman-president of the European Council into the illusion of a traffic-stopping “President of Europe”, despite the obvious lack of executive powers to fill such a role.

But, in questions of national importance and interest such as these, I am mystified by the lack of understanding across party lines from the probable next government party, and I am confounded by the lack of “natural patriotism” among Britons for British candidates and influence in European affairs.

Cheerfully abandoning your national interests and feelings must spring from deep motives, hard to fathom for an outsider.

Can anyone explain the wellsprings of pride and prejudice?



Ralf Grahn

Lisbon Treaty vs Blair

Should the European Council have a president as outlined in the Lisbon Treaty, or a coup d’état stopping traffic in some of the already most congested cities in the world?


Yesterday’s battles



The Open Europe blog reminds us that some are still fighting yesterday’s battles against EU reform in the shape of the Lisbon Treaty, in “It’s not too late” (29 October 2009).


***


Discussion roundup



Erkan’s Field Diary offers a roundup of links concerning the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker, who represents the Lisbon Treaty conception, and of Tony Blair, who represents the projections of grandeur.


***

Blair campaign

The new top jobs are not on the agenda of the European Council, but they are the focus of media interest and intensive discussions at the margins of the official meetings.

Yesterday evening UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown rolled out the heavy artillery to blast the trail for his Labour predecessor Tony Blair. If British mainstream media are anything to go by, Brown’s campaign was far from a resounding success.



“A tough pitch for Blair”, reports Gavin Hewitt for the BBC (29 October 2009).



“Blair’s EU presidency bid runs into trouble as summit starts”, writes Tony Barber on the FT Brussels blog (29 October 2009).



Charlemagne’s notebook observes that “An EU summit turns sour for Mr Blair” (30 October 2009).



The BBC reports that lack of support from European socialist leaders makes Blair’s chances seem slimmer than before, in “Blow to Blair’s hopes of EU job” (30 October 2009).



Brown’s failure to win over the European socialist leaders is reported clearly by John O’Donnell and Tim Castle in “Blair’s chances of EU president role slip” (Reuters, 29 October 2009).



EUbusiness summarises “Support for Britain’s Blair as EU president fading: reports” (30 October 2009).



Simon Taylor reports in the same vein as the others, in “Top EU jobs left undecided” (30 October 2009), clearly indicating that the socialist leaders are more interested in the office of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.



Andrew Rettman and Valentina Pop concur with the others, but add a few remarks on the other candidates for the top positions, in “EU summit sees fresh discussion on top appointments” (EUobserver, 30 October 2009).



Financial Times Deutschland has a more definitive headline than the others, abandoning all hope for Blair, in „Blair muss Hoffnungen auf Ratsvorsitz aufgeben” (29 October 2009).



The Stop Blair petition has now grown to 43,836 signatures.


***


British opposition

The Labour government may be behind Blair, and Gordon Brown may believe that most of the country would want to see a British president of the European Council. But Blair meets resistance at home as well as in the rest of Europe, and segments of UK opinion fiercely reject practically anything having to do with the European Union.



A short while ago, the BBC’s question on Have Your Say, “Who should be the first president of the EU”, had attracted 1,181 comments, few of the ones published this far are supportive of Blair.



In The Telegraph, James Kirkup and Bruno Waterfield report that “Only third of voters want Tony Blair to be EU president” (30 October 2009), referring to a Daily Telegraph/YouGov poll.


The Conservative shadow cabinet has been up in arms against appointing Blair, with William Hague calling it a hostile act and David Cameron wishing for a more “chairmanic” role, if there has to be a president of the European Council. Whispered, but less than subtle hints in “Conservatives threaten ‘five year war’ over President Blair”, by James Kirkup (The Telegraph, 28 October 2009).



It comes as no surprise that the Telegraph blogger Nile Gardiner, who works at the US Heritage Foundation, combines his loathing of the European Union, the Lisbon Treaty and Tony Blair in “Five reasons why Tony Blair should not be EU President” (29 October 2009). This is the antithesis of those who see Blair as a failed European.


Almost every article has a comments section, which gives an indication of public sentiment in Britain. I have left out most of the tabloids, but read and reflect.


***


Forward

It looks as if the European Council is going to get a centre-right president from a smaller member state, a consensus building chairman in the image of the Lisbon Treaty.

The socialist leaders have a chance to put forward a name for the high representative, and Britain could corner this influential post, if it supports David Miliband. (I would rank it above one of the economic portfolios in the Commission.)

If the Lisbon Treaty clears the Czech Constitutional Court and President Vaclav Klaus is good to his word, the Swedish Presidency of the EU Council starts formal consultations. An extra summit in about two weeks time could take on the nominations: Commission, president, high representative. The extra European Council could also deal with other implementing issues required by the Lisbon Treaty.

For the citizens, the backroom dealings are a reminder of the structure of the European Union. It is based on the member states and the national leaders are the main protagonists. Only a democratic EU would give the citizens the decisive voice over where the union should head and who should be at the steering wheel.



Ralf Grahn

European Council top jobs: Procedures, offices and persons

Have we advanced much since I looked at the freshly signed amending treaty in the blog post “EU Treaty of Lisbon: CFSP implementation” (13 January 2008)? Have our leaders improved the procedures? Have they taken the citizens of the European Union on board?

Here is what I asked, and have kept asking since:

“The selection processes for the President of the European Council and the High Representative/Vice-President are going to highly informative as to the ‘state of the Union’ concerning openness, transparency and accountability. Will we citizens know who the candidates are, will they campaign openly, and how are their merits going to be weighed and debated? Or are we supposed to stand by idly, waiting for white smoke to rise from the Conclave?”



Jean-Claude Juncker has done the (s)election process at least two services, by coming out into the open as a candidate and by stressing that the President of the European Council should be someone who serves the European interest.

But the importance of the posts and the exclusion of the EU’s citizens are in stark contrast, especially if some leaders want to morph their chairman into a “President of Europe”.

***

Offices



With regard to the President of the European Council, I refer to yesterday’s summary, titled “EU President” & 18 Brumaire (28 October 2009). I have not seen even one Blair supporter argue on the basis of the job description set out in the Lisbon Treaty.



A brief summary of my basic reasoning concerning the High Representative is found in “New EU High Representative – the most important job” (8 October 2009).

***

Persons

President of the European Council



Is it much or little, when the Stop Blair petition (available in 25 languages) has now grown to 42,933 signatures?

First of all, the number keeps growing steadily, and second, it dwarfs the size of the electoral college of 27.


The Financial Times has come out against Tony Blair’s candidacy in an editorial.



Richard Laming on the Federal Union blog weighs the track records of Tony Blair and Jean-Claude Juncker, and seems to come out in favour of the latter, in “Blair vs Juncker for president of the European Council” (28 October 2009).




Regards-citoyens tells us that UEF France has stated its support for Jean-Claude Juncker to become the President of the European Council, in “L’UEF France soutient la candidature à la présidence du conseil européen de Jean Claude Juncker” (28 Octobre 2009).



In Der Spiegel, Carsten Volkery speculates that Angela Merkel may become “Queen maker“ if Blair’s bid fails: Duell um EU-Präsidentschaft - Zwergenaufstand durchkreuzt Blairs Traum“ (28 October 2009).

Yesterday Angela Merkel was confirmed as Federal Chancellor, and in the evening she dined with the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, as a manifestation of the close relationship between the countries and in order to prepare for the European Council 29 to 30 October 2009.

The leaders said nothing about the EU top jobs ahead of the dinner, and I have yet to find any media report on if they found a common understanding.

***

High Representative – more important



Timothy Garton Ash is one of the few who discuss the two posts in public, of which the High Representative is more important. He does not see Tony Blair as the man to do the patient work to form a common European political will. Ash’s dream team is Martti Ahtisaari as President of the European Council and Joschka Fischer as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Failing that, Ahtisaari as President and David Miliband as High Representative. In, “Two people are needed to get Europe’s voice heard in the world. And it is the other one who is more likely to be British” (The Guardian, 28 October 2009).

***


Openness is the first test of the Lisbon Treaty, but our leaders haven’t even tied their shoelaces yet.



Ralf Grahn

Double standards for Blair and Miliband?

The blog post “David Miliband makes friends in Luxembourg” (26 October 2009) on Charlemagne’s notebook raised the question if EU member states apply double standards to the putative candidacy of Tony Blair to become President of the European Council compared to David Miliband as the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy:


“It was striking to me that some of the same diplomats who are most hostile to the idea of a President Tony Blair were quite positive about the idea of a High Rep Miliband.

This is interesting, as it comforts my hunch that many of the British-specific arguments levelled against Mr Blair—ie, that nobody should seek a top Europe job if their country is not in Schengen, or shuns the euro—are an excuse for Blair-rejection. Because the same objections are not made in relation to Mr Miliband, or at least not with the same force.”

***

Double standards?

Charlemagne’s hunch is worth discussion, if we want to approach the new top jobs (and other political choices) in a principled manner.

True, under the Lisbon Treaty the United Kingdom remains outside the common currency (eurozone), the Schengen area of free travel, major parts of justice and home affairs (area of freedom, security and justice) as well as the community of values manifested by the adoption of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Tony Blair and David Miliband are equally British, right?


Objective differences?

In my humble opinion, there are two more objective standards to consider. One has to do with the different jobs, the other with the personal responsibilities of the putative candidates.


Job description

The President will chair and drive forward the work of the European Council, which is meant to provide the European Union with impetus for its development and to define its political directions and priorities.

The tasks of the European Council encompass all policy areas of the EU.

The High Representative will conduct the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and shall ensure the consistency of the union’s external action, including work done by the Commission.

The CFSP is a distinct policy area, where the High Representative/Vice-President and the European External Action Service (EEAS) are intended to improve the input and output mechanisms, although under the Lisbon Treaty the area remains within the sphere of intergovernmental cooperation, basically subject to unanimity (liberum veto).

The internal and external policies of the European Union are meant to be in harmony, but the British opt-outs do not directly concern the area of the CFSP. EU countries realise that the UK has diplomatic and military know-how and assets.


Personal responsibility


Tony Blair served as distinguished Prime Minister of Britain from May 1997 to June 2007, but he is a failed European. No other individual is a squarely responsible for the current relationship between the UK and the rest of the European Union, including the opt-outs, countless “red lines” and prevalent reticence regarding progress. His promises to bring Britain to the heart of Europe came to naught. Blair opted for the Bush administration’s war against Iraq rather than for finding European consensus.

Few sane and sound organisations would elect lukewarm supporters to high office.



After junior ministerial posts, David Miliband became responsible for the Environment from 2006, and he put climate change firmly on the agenda (one of the EU’s absolute priorities). He serves as Foreign Secretary since June 2007, which marks the start of his personal responsibility in EU foreign policy. (The detailed mandate for the intergovernmental conference leading to the Lisbon Treaty was ready, so his part has been to defend the amending treaty and to prepare for its entry into force.)



Miliband’s interviews and actions as well as his speech yesterday at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) take the limits of the Lisbon Treaty as given, but his attitude is constructive and he argues well. His views are more or less in the European mainstream, but they are noticed because of the hostility of the Tories, UKIP and BNP as well as widespread anti-EU sentiment in Britain.


Conclusion

The jobs and the personal responsibilities differ between Tony Blair and David Miliband.

Even if both are Britons, Miliband is more acceptable on “objective” grounds, although it could be rash to conclude that the United Kingdom under a Conservative government would behave more constructively because of an EU High Representative from Britain.



Ralf Grahn

Kosmopolit on EU High Representative

At least until now, the member states of the European Union have declined to move into the open with regard to the two new top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty: the President of the European Council and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

This is something they should change at the upcoming meeting of the European Council 29 to 30 October 2009. Open nominations and public debate about known candidates are a must in an EU, where every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the union, and where decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen. These principles are actually a more important challenge for the Swedish Presidency of the EU Council and the member states’ leaders, than who they end up voting into the offices.

A talent pool of 500 million EU citizens should suffice to find two individuals with enough vision and experience or potential, even if most of the possible candidates have served at national level.



Kosmopolit has done what EU citizens can do at this stage, when the member states and Europarties have failed to act openly, by discussing candidates for the more important job, that of the new Hig Representative/Vice-President, in “The new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy” (Kosmopolito blog, 23 October 2009).

It is better if you read Kosmopolit’s thoughts about the best and the realistic candidates, without me second-guessing him.

One question of principle, though: I would not give as much weight to experience, because the right younger person with broadly suitable experience grows on the job. Wisdom and experience may be more important traits for the President of the European Council, whereas dynamism and work capacity could be crucial for the High Representative.



Ralf Grahn