Fw: The political Eurovision
Nov. 17th, 2009 01:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmutImagine a conversation between the new EU president and the US president. The US leader proposes to his European colleague the adoption of a common position on the situation in ... say, DR Congo (also recently discussed here). Or if you like, Afghanistan (LOL, very chewed lately), or Somalia, Iran, Belarus, you name it. "Sure thing", the new EU leader says, "but let me have a few consultations first". Then he hangs up and goes on a phone spree, making at least 27 other phone calls, possibly in several languages. An apocalyptic effort, isn't it?
In a few days, the guy who'll occupy the new EU position will be known. The President of Europe (Charlemagne? sorry, silly j/k). So...he or she'll have the difficult task to 'collect' the positions of all members of the Union, without being able to propose his own. He'll have to achieve a consensus on a common policy without appearing to be authoritarian or insulting anyone. So who's going to take this hard task? We'll have the answer on the EC meeting at the end of this month.
The future EU president will lead the biggest economical and political bloc in the world but he'll be much unlike his or her US counterpart. Firstly, because he won't be directly elected by thesheeple people, but by the benevolent governments. I personally think it would've been much more 'interesting' if the Europeans could vote like in the US - every country would receive a certain quota based on their population, then they'd elect the president. Something like the electorial college or whatever you guys call it. Or, in more Euro-familiar terms, something like that silly 'music' contest called Eurovision.
But that's just a fantasy of mine. Things will be quite different. So, lacking the support and weight of the direct votes of the Europeans, the EU president won't have the ability to influence the positions of the national governments. According to the Lisbon Treaty (which has just been ratified by the Czechs after a lot of delay), the president will "chair the European Council and would direct the work of that institution". And he'll "seek consensus and agreement". Sounds like a nice definition, but only until the moment when the person chosen by the 27 members tries to formulate a decision with which either Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel (or both) do not agree. And that, provided they're all sitting in the same room. It became evident that while being on his trips outside the EU and during his meetings with other leaders, the instructions which the president will be given about the negotiations that he'll supposedly lead, will amount to a whole separate suitcase. In other words, the new EU president will look more like the UN chairman rather than the US president. A talking head and nothing more. Or a community mod if you like. Actually that last parallel wasn't very appropriate. :-)
As if all this hasn't started to sound complicated enough, let me add 2 more factors. The new president will not just be held on a leash by the 27, he'll have to share his responsibilities and prestige with the Foreign Minister (formally, a 'supreme representative of the EU regarding the external policies'). The latter not only has far clearer jurisdiction, he'll have a significant budget and an experienced diplomatic apparatus at his disposal - the newly established European diplomatic service (using old school material but also some new and ambitious career mountaineers). All this shows that the EU foreign minister will be actually more important to the 27 than the EU president! He'll have the right to propose common initiatives and meanwhile will be a representative at the Council of Ministers and a vice president of the EC. Given the agreement that the EU president should be a former PM or some other former leader of a member country, it's interesting how much he or she will be happy when comparing himself with the foreign minister. Meanwhile, the 27 are in the schizophrenic situation that they'll be talking to one of these two while listening to the other. In case the idea of the Lisbon Treaty had been to make the decision-making process easier for the EU, it'll be very curious to watch how this is going to happen in reality.
All these arguments play their specific role in the quiet but very intense back-door tsunami diplomacy which is being played out around this political gambling table. Some insiders say 'there's an element of geographical and political balance' in all this. In other words, this election (or better call it selection) potentially exposes all possible inner tensions and divisions within the EU - East vs West, North vs South, big ones vs small ones, lefties vs righties, men vs women, you name it. It's all fascinatingly complicated, but it doesn't mean a reliable figurehead cannot be selected. If you had asked the people some 10 years ago if Barroso was a probable candidate for the EC, they'd probably have answered 'No way. Someone like Olli Rehn is probably good enough for a foreign minister, as many people would think it's a fair choice'. And that would've been all.
And because many people in Europe seem to think the same way, one of the most frequently mentioned names has been that of Tony Blair. But he's been losing ground in the last weeks, and now the skepticism over his name prevails. IMO it would've been ironic if the former leader of the most Euro-skeptical EU country would top the whole structure. It just wouldn't be right, somehow. And because there are constant bilateral and multilateral games and machinations in front or behind the microphones, the safest thing to say is that there's NO apparent front-runner.
But because the two names (the president and the foreign minister) will most probably still go in a double package, something like a president + VP squad, I'll offer some possible duets. The list may not be exhaustive but at least it includes the odds as per Ladbrokes. And I do like to gamble from time to time. Wanna gamble with me? :-)
President: Tony Blair of UK 2.25
pros: Regarded as visionary (heh heh); well-known, would work for EU on a global scale.
cons: The smaller countries fear that he'll be working only together with the big ones.
President: Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg 6.00
pros: His strong side is economy, which is good at times of crisis.
cons: Almost unknown to the world, from a small country.
President: Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands 5.00
pros: Preferred by the small and the medium-size countries.
cons: Too conservative on such issues like human rights, political criteria, expansion.
President: Paavo Lipponen of Finland 7.00
pros: A compromise choice, works well with most European leaders.
cons: His connections with Gazprom could cause him troubles with the countries of Central Europe.
Pesident: Marti Ahtisaari of Finland 34.00
pros: Has all necessary qualities, more or less.
cons: His advanced age and the probable selection of Olli Rehn for a foreign minister.
Foreign minister: David Miliband of UK
pros: A new fresh face, a person of consensus.
cons: He'd rather become president, but if Blair weighs in, Miliband has no chance.
Foreign minister: Karl Bild of Sweden
pros: An experienced diplomat, a well-known figure.
cons: Has a too dominating manner of leadership.
Foreign minister: Chris Patton of UK
pros: Another 'visionary', has got some ideas for the post, as well as huge experience; was the last Hong Kong governor, so he knows a thing or two about economy.
cons: Has no chance if Blair is selected on the other position.
Foreign minister: Olli Rehn of Finland
pros: Big experience; regarded as the candidate with the fewest 'negative' qualities. He's supported by Barroso and the newest member states.
cons: It's expected that the president would be a conservative, and the foreign minister a socialist. That's the deal. But he's not a socialist, rather a liberal.
Foreign minister: Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany
pros: Big experience, a socialist (a positive thing for the reasons stated above).
cons: Too cordial with Russia, has lost some political ground in his own country.
And now the latest developments have suggested that the EU could really opt for a woman to become president. And the only woman who has been formally nominated so far is former Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga. Never heard of her? Well, you better do some research. Because you might be hearing about her very often from now. ;-)
The best part about her: "Known as the Iron Lady, she has attacked EU leaders for taking decisions behind closed doors and working, as she put it, like the Soviet Union."
Hallelujah.
[discuss here]
In a few days, the guy who'll occupy the new EU position will be known. The President of Europe (Charlemagne? sorry, silly j/k). So...he or she'll have the difficult task to 'collect' the positions of all members of the Union, without being able to propose his own. He'll have to achieve a consensus on a common policy without appearing to be authoritarian or insulting anyone. So who's going to take this hard task? We'll have the answer on the EC meeting at the end of this month.
The future EU president will lead the biggest economical and political bloc in the world but he'll be much unlike his or her US counterpart. Firstly, because he won't be directly elected by the
But that's just a fantasy of mine. Things will be quite different. So, lacking the support and weight of the direct votes of the Europeans, the EU president won't have the ability to influence the positions of the national governments. According to the Lisbon Treaty (which has just been ratified by the Czechs after a lot of delay), the president will "chair the European Council and would direct the work of that institution". And he'll "seek consensus and agreement". Sounds like a nice definition, but only until the moment when the person chosen by the 27 members tries to formulate a decision with which either Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel (or both) do not agree. And that, provided they're all sitting in the same room. It became evident that while being on his trips outside the EU and during his meetings with other leaders, the instructions which the president will be given about the negotiations that he'll supposedly lead, will amount to a whole separate suitcase. In other words, the new EU president will look more like the UN chairman rather than the US president. A talking head and nothing more. Or a community mod if you like. Actually that last parallel wasn't very appropriate. :-)
As if all this hasn't started to sound complicated enough, let me add 2 more factors. The new president will not just be held on a leash by the 27, he'll have to share his responsibilities and prestige with the Foreign Minister (formally, a 'supreme representative of the EU regarding the external policies'). The latter not only has far clearer jurisdiction, he'll have a significant budget and an experienced diplomatic apparatus at his disposal - the newly established European diplomatic service (using old school material but also some new and ambitious career mountaineers). All this shows that the EU foreign minister will be actually more important to the 27 than the EU president! He'll have the right to propose common initiatives and meanwhile will be a representative at the Council of Ministers and a vice president of the EC. Given the agreement that the EU president should be a former PM or some other former leader of a member country, it's interesting how much he or she will be happy when comparing himself with the foreign minister. Meanwhile, the 27 are in the schizophrenic situation that they'll be talking to one of these two while listening to the other. In case the idea of the Lisbon Treaty had been to make the decision-making process easier for the EU, it'll be very curious to watch how this is going to happen in reality.
All these arguments play their specific role in the quiet but very intense back-door tsunami diplomacy which is being played out around this political gambling table. Some insiders say 'there's an element of geographical and political balance' in all this. In other words, this election (or better call it selection) potentially exposes all possible inner tensions and divisions within the EU - East vs West, North vs South, big ones vs small ones, lefties vs righties, men vs women, you name it. It's all fascinatingly complicated, but it doesn't mean a reliable figurehead cannot be selected. If you had asked the people some 10 years ago if Barroso was a probable candidate for the EC, they'd probably have answered 'No way. Someone like Olli Rehn is probably good enough for a foreign minister, as many people would think it's a fair choice'. And that would've been all.
And because many people in Europe seem to think the same way, one of the most frequently mentioned names has been that of Tony Blair. But he's been losing ground in the last weeks, and now the skepticism over his name prevails. IMO it would've been ironic if the former leader of the most Euro-skeptical EU country would top the whole structure. It just wouldn't be right, somehow. And because there are constant bilateral and multilateral games and machinations in front or behind the microphones, the safest thing to say is that there's NO apparent front-runner.
But because the two names (the president and the foreign minister) will most probably still go in a double package, something like a president + VP squad, I'll offer some possible duets. The list may not be exhaustive but at least it includes the odds as per Ladbrokes. And I do like to gamble from time to time. Wanna gamble with me? :-)
President: Tony Blair of UK 2.25
pros: Regarded as visionary (heh heh); well-known, would work for EU on a global scale.
cons: The smaller countries fear that he'll be working only together with the big ones.
President: Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg 6.00
pros: His strong side is economy, which is good at times of crisis.
cons: Almost unknown to the world, from a small country.
President: Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands 5.00
pros: Preferred by the small and the medium-size countries.
cons: Too conservative on such issues like human rights, political criteria, expansion.
President: Paavo Lipponen of Finland 7.00
pros: A compromise choice, works well with most European leaders.
cons: His connections with Gazprom could cause him troubles with the countries of Central Europe.
Pesident: Marti Ahtisaari of Finland 34.00
pros: Has all necessary qualities, more or less.
cons: His advanced age and the probable selection of Olli Rehn for a foreign minister.
Foreign minister: David Miliband of UK
pros: A new fresh face, a person of consensus.
cons: He'd rather become president, but if Blair weighs in, Miliband has no chance.
Foreign minister: Karl Bild of Sweden
pros: An experienced diplomat, a well-known figure.
cons: Has a too dominating manner of leadership.
Foreign minister: Chris Patton of UK
pros: Another 'visionary', has got some ideas for the post, as well as huge experience; was the last Hong Kong governor, so he knows a thing or two about economy.
cons: Has no chance if Blair is selected on the other position.
Foreign minister: Olli Rehn of Finland
pros: Big experience; regarded as the candidate with the fewest 'negative' qualities. He's supported by Barroso and the newest member states.
cons: It's expected that the president would be a conservative, and the foreign minister a socialist. That's the deal. But he's not a socialist, rather a liberal.
Foreign minister: Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany
pros: Big experience, a socialist (a positive thing for the reasons stated above).
cons: Too cordial with Russia, has lost some political ground in his own country.
And now the latest developments have suggested that the EU could really opt for a woman to become president. And the only woman who has been formally nominated so far is former Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga. Never heard of her? Well, you better do some research. Because you might be hearing about her very often from now. ;-)
The best part about her: "Known as the Iron Lady, she has attacked EU leaders for taking decisions behind closed doors and working, as she put it, like the Soviet Union."
Hallelujah.
[discuss here]
