A call to European hotline: Who am I speaking with?

The new ‘president’ of the European Union is yet to be elected, but names of candidates that are interested in the post are all over the place. I should be glad Barroso doesn’t read this. If he sees I am talking about a president, then I am sure his rage will be terrible. The new post is of course, the president of the European Council. At this moment it is like a ‘merry-go-round’, a new face every six months. Too much work, too less certainty and too much wobbling. The future will bring us one president that will sit for two and a half years, with chances to stay put for another two and a half.

But as always in politics we seem to wake up only to fall into the next nightmare again. Europe has my support; the ideals behind the Lisbon treaty have my support.  But so has reason, and reason makes Lisbon shaky. We will take a quick look at several candidates that are being named for the newly created post of president of the European Council. After that however, we will turn to the downside of the matter. Because Europe needs its people, Europe will need a face. It doesn’t have one at this moment, will it get one?

I will focus on three candidates first, one of which I need barely count because we can deal with him quickly. This is because his name is Balkenende. I would like to state, quite clearly, that it would be a grave mistake to assign this man any position that is related to any form of political power. A liking of Israel that is too influential in his decision making, no backbone when it came to taking a stance on the Iraq war (“we will not support it military, but we do support it politically”…) and leader of a Dutch parliament that will only make bureaucracy and subsidies worse than they already are. Add to that list an uncharismatic character and you will have everything Europe shouldn’t want. End.

Second is Tony Blair. Unlike Balkenende he is quite a charismatic person. Normally, I do not like to associate politics with American ways of proliferation, but in this case we might need just that. Assigning the position to a dull, bureaucratic and uncharismatic politician would be almost as much as another blow to the EU, or another argument in favor of the EU-critics. If there is one thing the EU needs, it’d be a face that people can recognize and associate with policies. Blair, whatever his faults may be, has influence and connections worldwide. It’s a strange thing that he seems to be respected still, especially when the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq hover so clearly before our eyes. Obviously, a case could be made that assigning him the position wouldn’t do well in the Middle East, which shouldn’t be taken lightly.

We might also mention Juncker, the candidate from Luxembourg. Not an option to be rejected out of hand. He is experienced, even if only by governing a small country (but we might recall his spot on words: “I am not a dwarf!) His ties with England are not the best imaginable, so those who would like to see England more involved will probably point to the effects this might have in luring England closer. But to be fair, it seems in any case unlikely that the mood of the English people will change towards Brussels, because the current polls decidedly report that the Tories are heading for a landslide victory, at least relative to the situation they’re now in. And for some reason I can’t see the Tories marching into our continent with blue, yellow starred flags in their hands.  And even though it might be good for overseas European popularity (if you assume that Blair will have a positive effect on ‘his’ people, which is all but sure), the distance England takes from European affairs can hardly be counted as a legitimate argument against Juncker’s chances.

By taking these two politicians you have two very different profiles, which will shove some important matters into the limelight. One we already mentioned, that is the question whether we should stress someone that can lure England closer to Europe. In the current situation I consider it to be too far removed from reality in order to take it into account however, so it doesn’t bear any strength. Two other questions remain, because of the enormous lack of legitimatization of European politics: Do we want a face that has always been pro-Europe, and do we want someone that stirs up emotion and interest, by virtue of being a recognizable face?

I for one would like to have a person on the spot that is of interest to the public. The Lisbon Treaty has always had my support, even though it’s not as good as it should be. But its one great fault is giving the European Parliament more power, while it doesn’t hook up with the people its governing for. The institution is fine, but a parliament should connect to its people. Changing the system is not going to work, that much is clear. Too much money, bureaucracy and a general unwillingness will prevent this. But the problem needs solving. That’ll be a difficult de-tour, summed up in making European politics more interesting. That won’t work if neither journalists nor the people fancy the policy makers and its leader. One pro for Mr. Blair. But this has a negative side as well. A potential clash of power in the EU is at hand, and please do not let it get out of hand. It’ll be interesting to see how the president will cooperate with the ‘Foreign Minister’, alas the Commission vice-President. Those two better not block each other’s roads, perspectives and possibilities. When you assign the spot to Mr. Blair, you’ll have a person with ambitions, who will not be shoved into a side role quickly. In better times, with more hope and less economic and political despair, you’d say ‘they’ll just have to wing it’, but confidence is not altogether on unknown heights. A pro-Europe and respected politician, with a clean-sheet when it comes to making war, might have a head-start: One point to Luxembourg.

But taken either of those, it still gets all the more complicated and frustrating. Who is going to be Europe’s next face? Even if a president of the European Council is elected, I won’t be able to give you an honest answer. Because there will be, as there are now, several powers that be. One will be the foreign minister, with an extra ‘vice-president of the commission’ label attached to him/her, the second will be the president of the European Commission, and the third will be what we have come to know as the actual president, who is the president of the council. The two presidents have overlapping tasks, especially now that the council will be granted more status and power because of Lisbon Treaty ratification. But even if these two get along well, which is not at all sure since the people who are appointed might come from different political sides, there is another potential power struggle with the foreign minister.

At this moment all we can do is hope for a candidate that is ambitious enough so as to become both president of the council and the commission. That spares us one possibility to bicker. The best possible solution would be a combination of commission and council tasks, in legal terms, so as to give Europe one presidential face. Please Brussels, prevent this continent from tripping over its own feet again, which have become so hard to see thanks to its enormous bureaucratic belly.