whodoicall.eu

I suppose it was naive to assume that only the English-speaking press would get its analysis of the new President of the European Council completely wrong – as we’ve been documenting on this blog. Sadly German weekly Die Zeit falls into the same trap in an article from 20.03.2008:

Das Präsidentenamt wird der mächtigste Job sein, den die EU je zu vergeben hatte.

This roughly translates as the president job is the most powerful ever awarded in the EU. No – absolutely not. The article makes one reference to the Commission President, the position which, as head of the EU’s executive, will remain stronger than the European Council President. There’s also not a single mention in Die Zeit of the lack of democratic accountability of the European Council position.

I know journalists always want to make a pleasant story of power and intrigue, but why on this issue are so many basic errors always made?

I think I’ve now read the first genuinely good analysis about future Presidents in a UK publication. Entitled “The Big Question: What is the role of the EU President, and who are the leading candidates?” it appeared in The Independent on Tuesday this week, written by John Lichfield. On particular paragraph is excellent – a succinct summary of the case for One President:

The obvious solution would be to appoint the same person as council President and EC President, with the High Representative as his or her sidekick and “foreign minister”. There is nothing in the EU treaties, as amended by the reform treaty, to prevent this from happening. You would then have a genuine “President for Europe” with real scope and power. For this reason alone, it will not happen.

Yes, the last line is our fear too – is any leader willing to be that radical? Citizens wanting a democratically legitimate EU should demand that sort of thinking. Lichfield also says that federalists hope the European Council position would develop into a directly elected President… I’m none too sure about that! Federalism is more often about parliamentary systems and not direct election. But some democratic legitimacy for the European Council President job is vital.

Charlemagne in The Economist last week was entitled “The parable of the Presidents” and looks at another facet of the European Council President job – how it keeps Heads of States away from chairing meetings while their ministerial colleagues will still chair formations of the Council of the EU. While my own reaction would be ‘tough’, there might well be something useful in this – if Heads of States themselves are none too pleased with the President of the European Council job that might mean they will not want a strong character to fill the position?

A poll for Financial Times shows that a majority of the people asked would like to see a high-profile person as EU-president.

It is an interesting poll, but it is not asking the right questions. The coming year’s debate cannot only be about what kind of candidates we want. Don’t we need to know what kind of position they are candidates for first?

The result gives strong support for a more clear EU-leadership. However would it not be more important to give the role in it self legitimacy and responsibilities rather than just appointing an influential person? And, do we really want a strong and leader of the Council, appointed by the Heads of States and Governments in diplomatic negotiations rather than democratic debates? Finally, what are the chances that the council will ever agree on a top-figure?

Adam Daniel Rotfeld, writing in the journal Europe’s World considers the issue of a ‘double-hat’, i.e. the same person as President of the European Commission and the European Council. This is the paragraph from the article (towards the end):

Looking ahead, governance issues are likely to be subject of review as the innovations of the Reform Treaty are tested in practice. The double-hatted high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy could be a model for use elsewhere in the institutional architecture. A more ambitious double-hatting exercise would be one in which the president of the European Council serves at the same time as the president of the Commission. Interaction between the new permanent president of the Council and the member state presidencies is another area where improvements might be needed. The composition of the Commission, where traditionally there is a lot of creativity and fresh thinking, will attract attention. [my emphasis]

Are there other high level politicians that are backing the idea that have so far escaped out attention? (Hat tip: David Schoibl)

The Swedish MEP Åsa Westlund writes about whodoicall.eu on her blog.

Here is an English translation of her Swedish entry:

While there in Sweden is a debate about different negative aspects (real or imaginary) of the Lisbon Treaty my good friend Jon Worth has started a campaign called “Whodoicall.eu”.

They write: Henry Kissinger famously asked “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?” We think it’s time for an answer.

Their answer is that the European Council President (with the Heads of State and Government) and the Commission President should be the same person.

The idea with the Lisbon Treaty is that the chair of the European Council (which is sometimes refered to as the EU President) should be elected by the Heads of State and Government while the Commission President should be suggested by the Heads of State and Government but have democratic legitimacy by being approved by the directly elected European Parliament. If it would be the same person he/she would need both support from the Heads of State and Government and the European Parliament and in that have more democratic legitimacy in the whole EU. Someone that Kissinger could well have called.

The thought is utopian, but the question about who should lead the EU is not that simple. With the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament gets equal power with the Council in many areas.

I think it is good if more decisions are moved from the diplomats in closed rooms to the Parliament’s open plenary where the debate can be open to media and the public. Politics behind closed doors rarely gives good results.

There is a balance between efficient decision-making and the fact that democracy and debate have to take its time. The Lisbon Treaty is one step forward, but the debate about the democratic legitimacy should continue.

Photo: European Parliament