Archive for October, 2009

Just because he did not particularly want the job and has no European profile to speak of does not mean that Guenter Oettinger will turn out to be a *bad European commissioner. But it does speak volumes about how Berlin views Brussels.

German chancellor Angela Merkel seems to have surprised all with her choice of the Baden-Wuerttemberg minister president as the next German EU commissioner. Including the man himself, who duly said so.

The decision to send Oettinger to Brussels is widely interpreted as solving a personnel problem for the chancellor’s Christian Democrats (CDU). It gets rid of a politician who is doing poorly in the polls, and who is heading a region that has been badly affected by the economic crisis (economic growth is predicted to shrink by 8-9 percent this year) and allows in new blood. And all in time to turn things around before regional elections in 2011.

Domestically, very neat.

But it leaves a damaging wider impression of general disregard. Berlin showed only contempt for the European Commission in the way it went about choosing its next man about Brussels.

The domestically-dictated manoeuvring confirms the more standoffish relationship between Brussels and Berlin since the time Gerhard Schroeder, the previous chancellor, took over in 1998 and simply gives a German tinge to Brussels’ image of being a resting place for less-than-useful politicians.

But as the largest member state and part of the duo of countries that is needed to keep the spirit of the EU alive, the German chancellor has a wider European duty. Particularly now, as Europe plods along in its oddly reactive manner amid the economic crisis, lacking leadership and ideas.

So it leaves us with a few interesting questions in week that that is set to be full of interesting questions.

- Who will French president Nicolas Sarkozy propose?
- What will MEPs make of the German nominee when it comes to his hearing before MEPs
- And before that even, what will European commission president Jose Manuel Barroso make of it?

Barroso alone can divvy up the portfolios and his phone has been hopping with incoming calls as capitals lobby for a plum job in his commission. An EU official said the president already had a “pretty good idea” of which country will get what. Time will tell if there have been any last minute changes because of Berlin’s move.

* A good  commissioner, I think, is one with a European rather than a German representative (the incumbent social democrat Guenter Verheugen, in charge of industry, rather tipped the balance towards home), who has a good grasp of the dossier, can learn the EU ropes quickly and is politically astute.

And what of Slovakia?
The Slovak government came out with all guns firing last week wanting a Czech-type opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Swedish EU presidency, drowning in institutional flotsam, gave a rather terse response which could be summed up as ‘don’t even go there.’

Since then the Czech president Vaclav Klaus has indicated the Swedish proposal has given him the exit he apparently wanted to get off the Klaus-built Lisbon merry-go-round. But nothing from the Slovaks.

It turns out they have not yet seen what the Czechs are being offered. So they are engaging in a restrained silence. For the moment. But one EU official indicated that the solution might be a political statement that says that the charter will not affect “property rights” in any member state. This would accompany a separate Czech-specific statement.

Well, the first session of the Commission President Question Time won’t go down in the annals of EU history as touched by searing rhetoric and debate.

But never mind. It was a start. Jose Manuel Barroso was there at least – smile fixed in place. And a sprinkling of deputies.

The rules of the game were half an hour of free questioning and half an hour of questions on the chosen topic of the day – this time the economic crisis. MEPs had a minute to ask their questions, Mr Barroso one minute to answer.

EP president Jerzy Buzek was quite strict about the times. Which was good. Past experience shows that any signs of weakness on speaker timing is ruthlessly exploited by those MEPs – and they are not small in number – with an urge to pontificate.

Most of the questions did focus on the economic crisis and why, in the questioners point of view, the commission was not doing enough to tackle it. Barroso had two answers which could be summarised as: the commission is doing everything in its power etc and/or it’s the member states’ fault.

Listeners found also found out that there “may be some more” new commissioner posts (other than the ones Barroso has already mentioned) but that there will be “no revolution” in terms of posts, and that he finds it difficult to sum up all his arguments in one minute.

Meanwhile, amid declarations of admiration for the single market, Liberal leader Guy Verhofstadt managed to persuade Barroso to say he supported Competition commissioner Neelie Kroes’ tough stance on Germany’s dealings with Opel.

A question on why the parliament continues to have its expensive seat in Strasbourg amid all this economic hardship was artfully dodged (well just ignored) while a leftfield query on faulty electronic sheep tags in the UK and a frankly distasteful comparison between sheep and immigrants was given an earnest little response. (And this despite Buzek gallantly interrupting to say Barroso couldn’t possible be expected to know about electronic tagging problems with British farm animals).

The commission president broke the serious mould once when British eurosceptic MEP Nigel Farage put it to him that he and the commission had bullied the Irish into voting Yes to the Lisbon Treaty earlier this month.

Barroso countered that the Irish vote was a “declaration of independence from the UK Independence Party because you were there making a campaign and the Irish said No!”

Both politicians grinned madly during the exchange, the latter apparently amazed that he was actually dipping his toe into a bit of spontaneous debate in an EU parliament chamber and Farage, once again, reveling in his bad-boy-but-good-speaker image.

And then it was back to stock answers on the economic crisis.

Strap yourselves in. The (almost) post-Nice EU finds itself at the gates of Lisbon Treaty land. And confusion reigns. The difficulties concern the future external representation and running of the EU where the treaty is gloriously imprecise.

A summary of the Lisbon Treaty in this area reads like a school essay question:

The European Commission president, the President of the European Council and the EU foreign minister all represent the European Union to some extent. Please discuss.

(PS. and while you’re at it, don’t forget the rotating presidencies of the EU,  also determined not to take a backseat role.)

And member states are (somewhat frantically) discussing it – particularly the shape of the president of the European Council. (The treaty says the president should drive forward the work of the European Council and ensure external representation of the Union “without prejudice” to the EU foreign minister). So far, so great potential for overlapping and interpretation.

The Benelux countries have circulated a paper saying the president should have an administrative role only. The thinking is similar in Poland too, and, I imagine, in most small- to medium- sized member states.

The large member states have been relatively silent on the matter. But I cannot imagine that they would want a powerful president as has been discussed. This person would eclipse them. And what politician anywhere knowingly agrees to create a post that is glitzier than their own. Or knowingly agrees to install a person who risks outshining them.

An MEP remarked to me recently that if Tony Blair were to become council president, journalists would not know whether to attend his press conference or that of French president Nicolas Sarkozy after an EU leaders’ meeting.

The question is also attracting some interest beyond the Brussels beltway. (Thankfully).

There are EU council president facebook groups for ex British prime minister Tony Blair and former Irish president Mary Robinson. The former has 226 members. The latter’s group has 4,789 members.

Could Mrs Robinson be someone who could both capture EU popular imagination and interest as well as solve the dilemma the EU leaders seem to find themselves in: Finding a person who would be taken seriously by other countries but would not run away with the role?

We shall see. It is very early days still and she is not yet on the ‘serious contender’ list. And those who make it onto the list too early are often not those who are ultimately nominated.

(Naturally, all of the above comes with a Vaclav Klaus caveat.)

The EU cavalry moved on quickly, didn’t it? Ireland, under eye-poppingly intense European scrutiny until approximately 11am on Saturday morning when the results trend was already clear, is now very much yesterday’s story. Prime minister Brian Cowen had a short moment of glory on Saturday afternoon but by Sunday foreign minister Michael Martin was being quizzed by state broadcaster RTE about when the jobs apparently promised by a Yes vote would materialise.

(I imagine the Lisbon Treaty bun-fight was a not entirely unwelcome distraction these past few weeks as the government now refocusses on discussions on keeping the wobbly coalition alive.)

And someone has to clear up the ocean of Lisbon posters, of course. But whoever has that thankless task may be helped by the fact that some of them were so outlandish they are likely to reach cult status. A Belgian student travelling back to Brussels on Sunday evening had the infamous minimum wage poster, proudly tucked under his arm. (“Yes to Lisbon – 1.84 minimum wage?, the poster asked. It’s the question mark that gives it the must-have edge.)

Although, on balance, I would say my favourite poster of the lot was a very small green one. Not attributed to anyone, it  said: “We can’t trust them, vote no.” Can’t trust the EU? The Government? Perhaps it was just a generic referendum poster that hangs there all the time, given that, as the entire EU now knows, referendums in Ireland are not an all too irregular occurrence.

Looking the wrong way?
As I noted earlier, the EU, and the journalists covering it, turned their attention with almost indecent haste to Prague after the Irish vote while Warsaw, the other Lisbon signatory no-show, is mentioned as a mere afterthought.

But maybe Polish president Lech Kaczynski is worried that his Czech counterpart Vaclav Klaus is stealing the “prickly and unpredictable character” limelight. In any case reports indicate that he is not willing to put pen to paper as quickly as had been previously thought.

Klaus, on the other hand, appears to be preparing the way to eventually sign the treaty.

Those naughty opposition Fine Gaelers. Stealing the government’s thunder with their sneaky exit poll and robbing journalists of some of the suspense ahead of the official result, expected at 5.30pm local time.

Gathered in Dublin Castle, the main topic of less-than-shiny-eyed journalists this early Saturday morning is whether the internet connection will hold once the expected 560 newshounds from assorted countries are in the building.

Last time round, (was it really only 16 months ago?), the whole system crashed early on in the day leaving journalists in internet-less fury for much of the proceedings.

The organizers didn’t inspire much confidence yesterday by sending round a clipped little message warning that “the internet bandwidth is limited.” Journalists were told that any attempt to upload large files “may cause the entire system to crash.” This, apparently, will result in “the culprits being asked to leave the Press Centre.” So there we go.

But the real interest, of course, with a Yes vote seemingly on the way is what does it mean for British Tory leader David Cameron. An Irish Yes puts him and his party in quite an EU bind.

He won some political cachet among his eurosceptic rank and file by taking the Conservatives out of the centre-right pro-federalist EPP grouping in the European Parliament, after years of vague threats by the party.

But that political capital won’t last long, I suppose. He will be pressed by those merciless British newspapers to be clear on exactly what he will do about the Lisbon Treaty if he comes to power after a general election next year and it is already in force in the EU.

And what will a Yes vote mean in the immediate term?

Journalists will continue to write about the Lisbon Treaty, of course. (sigh) But it will be all about the problems of implementing the thing.

The anxiety originally caused by the Irish No will pale into insignificance by comparison.

Finally the Irish referendum is upon us!  The ‘Irish question’ has been lurking like an uninvited guest at a fancy party for over a year now – the “if” sentence in countless newspaper articles, the what-will-happen conversation of many an EU official.

Personally, I am Lisbon Treaty-jaded to the extent that I really believed that the three middle-aged women, who were waiting to take the flight to Dublin yesterday might actually be talking about Friday’s referendum. I had a quick tune in. Of course they weren’t. (A vigorous dissection of parenting skills was underway instead.) Neither were any of the other passengers.

The Lisbon-free zone lasted right through until the first big junction after Dublin airport. After that it is a cacophony of treaty posters. A screaming mass of claims and counterclaims all the way in to the Irish capital. Virtually every available streetlamp and sign post, in fact pretty much any old vertically standing object, has been usurped for the cause.

The Nos had it – both in terms of number and eye-catching slogans. (That says nothing of their veracity, of course).

An opinion formed on the basis of the posters could conclude that:

Vote No otherwise there will be a minimum hourly wage of 1.84 euro in Ireland, health and education will be privatised, the EU will turn into a military superstate, Germany will be able to outvote any other member states on any issue, alone. So far so specific.

On a more general front: a no vote is solicited because “95 percent” of other Europeans would have voted no,  and because 2009 is comparable to 1945 (*I  have to admit the nuances of that were lost on me – perhaps because the bus was going too fast).  And, if all else fails, vote No because you dislike the government, a theme that has started to emerge more strongly in the last days. (“The only job its saves is his,” says one poster featuring a morose looking PM Brian Cowen).

Vote Yes on the other hand and Ireland will get more jobs and the economy will recover more quickly and because the country “belongs” with Europe. “Ireland needs Europe – Yes for the economy”, “We’re stronger with Europe”, “We can’t fight climate change alone” say various lamp posts.

The Yes side has been pushing the fear button too – “It’s simple, I’m safer in Europe” says one poster, almost as if this is a referendum on EU membership – another dramatic one depicts a large cross roads with a sign saying RUIN or RECOVERY in glaring letters.

The friends I had dinner with last night were all going to vote Yes out of a feeling of owing loyalty to Europe rather than on any specifics of the Lisbon Treaty. In addition, a no vote, they thought, would isolate Ireland and result in a cut in foreign investment by businesses.

*A small clarification – the poster suggests that European democracy (1945-2009) will end this year if there is a Yes vote.