Imagine that! Someone has actually gone and applied for the job of President of the European Council. Sat down, thought about what it entails – anybody’s guess – and written a little job application.
The Irish Times reports today that former Irish prime minister John Bruton, ending his term as EU ambassador in Washington, sent a letter to member states’ ambassadors in the US to ask them to tell their political masters that he would be keen to take the post.
“I am writing to you about the position of president of the European Council. In view of the close working relationship we have, as ambassadors here in Washington, I hope you will allow me to ask for your assistance in conveying a message to your government. I wish to express my interest in being considered for the position, particularly in the event that no serving member of the council is available.”
A helpful little third-person memo elaborates on his qualities and notes that while he was Taoiseach he was chairman-like rather than presidential.
Well well well. How very un-EUish. How transparent. How … quaint.
To date I was aware of only two methods to get the post – created by the Lisbon Treaty and, if tradition holds, likely be decided by EU leaders in as thoroughly opaque a manner as possible.
1) The quietly put your name out there, watch a media frenzy build up and endless speculation about what you or your country has or has not done for Europe. Profess undying love for your day job (even though no one is quite sure what you do) but do not reject the EU post out of hand. A la Blair.
2) The interview. Set yourself up with a well-known newspaper for a little chat about this and that. Then let it be known that (sigh) if greatness – or middlingness (remember, the treaty is hazy on that) – is thrust upon you, you’ll do your duty to save Europe from option number 1. A la Juncker
Actually I have just this minute seen a third: The article in another well-known newspaper. (This solution is a half-way house between the two which is probably what the candidate will also be after everyone has sat down to rationally think about what it will say about the EU if either Blair or Juncker gets the job). Write a piece about what you think the role of EU president should encompass – strong but politically unthreatening (that ought to cover all bases). The small bio at the end of the piece reminds everyone of who you are and that you are currently not doing anything. A la Paavo Lipponen
Personally, I must say it never actually occurred to me that anyone would blatantly ask for the post. All other criteria being arbitrary, and they appear to be so far, Bruton should probably get it for that alone.
#1 by Alfonso on October 29, 2009 - 1:57 pm
Verhofstadt!!!
Seriously, if we want better EU institutions, close to the citizens, we need leaders worry about improving them, instead of blaming them for every evil in the world…
#2 by E on October 29, 2009 - 5:00 pm
Great post,Honor!As always.
#3 by Marcel on October 29, 2009 - 6:13 pm
Verhofstadt is a federalist and out of touch with what the majority of peoples want. He’s even on record stating to be willing to ignore the peoples in order to build federalism. No no and no.
I favor our own prime minister JP Balkenende. Why? He has no charisma, is not a strong leader but more a bureaucrat type and is generally disliked by the peoples here in Netherlands.
He’d be ideal because all federalist dreams of a strong world leader would be shattered if he got the job. Go JP!
#4 by Paul on October 29, 2009 - 8:16 pm
I agree with Alfonso that Guy Verhofstadt would make an excellent first president – largely because he’s the only current or recent national leader who actually has a vision of where he see’s the EU going.
And, for experience, anyone who can hold together a coalition in the political mess that is Belgium should find building an EU consensus relatively easy ;o)
That said, I don’t think the current EU leaders have enough courage to actually want a direction, so a Verhostadt isn’t going to happen.
Transparency is good, though, so I would agree with Honor that John Bruton should get the post since he is the only declared candidate.
#5 by Gerard on October 29, 2009 - 8:16 pm
For me it is important to have a President of the European Council coming from a country
which is a fully member of the European Union. Countries which refuse to come in the Euro financial zone should not get an important post in the council, also countries which not have signed the Schengen treaty for free traffeling in the EU.
#6 by Michael on October 29, 2009 - 8:59 pm
@Gerard: This is not an article about the president European Central Bank or president of the Schengen area, saying that the president of European Union should be a member of one of these is ridiculous. Why don’t you just insist that they have to be in NATO and the UN.
Any person from a member state of the Council of Europe should be entitled to become its president.
For information on who these countries are, consult wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organisations_in_Europe
#7 by DOCM on October 29, 2009 - 10:17 pm
This utterly silly debate simply illustrates the silliness of the decision to create the post of President of the European Council in the first place.
#8 by GARETH on October 29, 2009 - 10:28 pm
Schengen treaty for free traffeling in the EU,I find that comment typical of some one who thinks just because there member it should only apply to there country and thats block who should have as presedent,Guy Verhofstadt the guy has nothing going for him and i hope the brits veto him as we did in 2004.
#9 by al on October 29, 2009 - 10:50 pm
How will the leaders have impetus to “improve” them, if they are not accountable to the people they supposedly serve…? The EU institutions have not been “close to the citizens” for 59 years, and that’s not going to change by wishing that its leaders would abandon corruption and, especially, power.
#10 by GARETH on October 29, 2009 - 10:53 pm
AL well said
#11 by Des White on October 30, 2009 - 4:58 am
Hmmm, John Bruton for President. Well, as a keen observer of Irish politics I think it is worth noting that John Bruton was an outstanding Prime Minister and would probably have remained PM for several years except for his partners in Government at that time, the politically incompetent Irish labour Party. He proved that he could work effectively with a wide range of differing socialist and conservative politicians. He is truly ‘honest’ and incorruptible, really I mean that, an actual, living, breathing politician of integrity. There is few as well qualified in my view. There used to be (maybe there still is) something of the Meath farmer about him (john is from Meath). Meath is one of the richest farm areas in Ireland and John was a TD (member of parliament) for many years. Ireland’s STV – PR voting system means a lot of interaction with voters of all backgrounds is normal and John displays this experience. He is also open minded and engaged by passionate and humane politics. Europe could do with his considerable skills. Having said that, I had a pint (or two) of Guinness with him some years ago and he is great company in an informal social setting. Des White
#12 by Poustis on October 30, 2009 - 1:33 pm
Michael wrote: ‘Any person from a member state of the Council of Europe should be entitled to become its president. ‘
Who’s talking about the CoE? As far as I know, the whole debate is about the European Council and I’d like to see mr. Verhofstadt as its president and as the president of the EU.
#13 by EUro-star on October 30, 2009 - 2:39 pm
Let’s hope it won’t be Balkenende
#14 by GARETH on October 30, 2009 - 2:52 pm
i hate to see mr. Verhofstadt as a so called president,let be honest the Flemish cant stand him,
#15 by Alphast on October 31, 2009 - 12:17 pm
Let’s hope it won’t be Balkenende indeed. The guy is the epitome of blandness, incompetence and whose skills are limited to his political guile. He never had even the courage to express his candidature clearly. By the way, I think Honor is right: candidatures should be public and people who apply should campaign for the post so that, even if they are elected by other leaders, at least there is some public debate. That would be more democratic.
#16 by Denis Cooper on October 31, 2009 - 1:18 pm
Off-topic but topical, we are now just hours away from the European Commission being legally reduced to a one man band.
All the present Commissioners other than the recently re-appointed President Barroso will become ex-Commissioners at midnight CET, when their five year terms expire.
There’s a pretence that their terms have been extended until after the Lisbon Treaty has come into force, but that is simply not permitted under the relevant provisions in the treaties.
If anyone doubts that, they could try asking:
“Precisely which treaty articles have been used to allow the Commissioners to remain in post beyond the end of their five year terms?”
There’ll be no answer, because there are no such treaty articles.
So much for the rule of law within the EU.
#17 by Denis Cooper on November 1, 2009 - 12:02 am
With effect from 24:00 CET October 31st, there are now 26 vacant posts on the European Commission.
Jose Manuel Barroso was recently re-appointed as President according to the correct procedures laid down in the treaties, but the five year terms of the 26 other persons who were previously Commissioners have now expired.
The claim that their terms have been extended is a mere pretence, there being no treaty provision which permits the term of a Commissioner to be extended.
If they now impersonate European Commissioners and continue to draw salaries and expenses and purport to carry out the functions of a Commissioner, then they will be putting themselves at personal risk of both criminal and civil prosecution, and their actions and decisions will be legally null and void.
#18 by al on November 2, 2009 - 6:16 am
The names confuse people. The Council of Europe is presumably an independent entity of the Brussels government; however, they use the EU’s flag as their own insignia. The “European Council” is distinct from the “Council of the European Union” (the latter originally, and still informally, “Council of Ministers”); the former is the official “head of state” of the EU, and seems to be getting more power by leaps and bounds, even taking it from the COM and, if things continue to work out as they are, the Commission as well. Nice tidy consolidation of power. (Three Councils, very similarly named, all doing what, we all wonder.)
Why is that? So the process of removing more freedom can continue at a faster pace…? It’s safe to say that nobody but a Europhile would be given the post, but at least wish for (since you can’t vote for) a more sceptical person.
#19 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on November 2, 2009 - 10:00 am
Good question Dennis. But it is the same thing with government Ministers in member states. When their government is put in minority, they just hold to their post to avoid complete vacancy until someone else is appointed. It is common sense and doesn’t need specific laws for it, although many written Constitutions actually put it black on white. This said, the EU has no Constitution, thanks to all euro-skeptics out there, so the current problem is largely their fault (added to the fact that the delay is also their own doing).
#20 by Denis Cooper on November 2, 2009 - 11:14 am
Typically, Jean-Baptiste, a Prime Minister is appointed by a Head of State – President, constitutional monarch – and the Prime Minister then selects others to fill ministerial posts, and the Head of State has the legal power to keep the government in office during a transitional period.
That isn’t the case with the European Commission, which only exists by virtue of treaties made between the member states; and the President and other Commissioners are appointed jointly by representatives of the member states in accordance with the provisions of those treaties.
The treaties provide for a maximum five year term for Commissioners, and they do not provide for the discretionary extension of that term by anybody, under any circumstances – as you can check for yourself:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:321E:0001:0331:EN:pdf
There is simply no legal basis for the claim that the terms of the Commissioners have been extended by a few months. While an ordinary citizen may find it practically impossible to compel them to obey the law, companies with greater resources could certainly challenge the legality of any decision made by an unlawful Commission.
If the EU is incapable of keeping to its founding treaties, its primary law, on such a basic matter as European Commissioners promptly leaving office when their terms expire, as now proves to be the case, then how can national parliamentarians have any confidence whatsoever that they know what will and will not permitted under the treaties they are asked to approve?
#21 by Blaat on November 2, 2009 - 2:33 pm
@al
A minor correction:
It’s the EU that uses the flag of the Council of Europe, not the other way around.
Isn’t it the national parliaments (or to be really exact national governments) that aren’t following the treaties, they’re the one who need to send a commissioner to Brussels and so far only a handful countries have done so. Kind of hard for the commission to do his job when no one is there.
#22 by Denis Cooper on November 2, 2009 - 10:06 pm
That isn’t what’s happened, Blaat.
It started after the Irish disrupted the EU’s schedule by voting “no” last June. Then there was the question of whether the new Commission would be formed under the rules of the present treaties, or under the rules of the treaties as amended by Lisbon.
By January it was being publicly mooted that the terms of the Commissioners would be extended beyond October 31st:
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/commissioners-prepare-to-stay-beyond-mandate/63752.aspx
“José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, told his fellow commissioners last Friday (23 January) to be ready to stay in Brussels beyond 31 October, the official end-date of the Barroso Commission.”
You’re right to blame the member state governments insofar as they should have said then and there that the Commission should not even think about going down that unlawful path.
There are indications that it was the lawyers at the Commission who wanted to turn a blind eye to the treaty provisions and extend the terms of the Commissioners, while the lawyers at the Council of Ministers opposed that and instead argued for appointing a new Commission in the usual way, even if it had to be adjusted or re-appointed after the Lisbon Treaty had come into force.
Evidently the lawyers at the Commission got their way, with the result that of the 27 persons pictured here:
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/index_en.htm
only one still has the legal status of Commissioner, while the other 26 are now ex-Commissioners unlawfully masquerading as Commissioners.
#23 by eulogist on November 3, 2009 - 12:33 am
@Denis Cooper: You are wrong.
Article 215 EC Treaty: “[...] Save in the case of compulsory retirement under Article 216 [= gross misconduct / eulogist], Members of the Commission shall remain in office until they have been replaced or until the Council has decided that the vacancy
need not be filled, as provided for in the second paragraph of this Article.”
#24 by Denis Cooper on November 3, 2009 - 10:32 am
So you think they have indefinite terms?
Not so – Article 214 TEC:
“1. The Members of the Commission shall be appointed, in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 2, for a period of five years, subject, if need be, to Article 201.
Their term of office shall be renewable.”
Renewable, mark, not extendable.
[Article 210 relates to the procedure for and after a motion of censure by the European Parliament.]
#25 by Denis Cooper on November 3, 2009 - 10:34 am
Correction, Article 201 in the last paragraph.
#26 by Blaat on November 3, 2009 - 11:41 am
I know that’s not how it happened but while you’re insisting that the commissioner has expired its mandate and adding a sneaky note saying ‘how can national parliamentarians trust the EU if it can’t even follow it’s own rules’. I’m pointing out that it’s the same national parliamentarians who are going along with it, furthermore it’s not like there are 27 ‘new’ commissioners waiting to get started (oh hang on that should be 26 or around 15 if Lisbon goes into force, I don’t think they’ve even debated who gets to lose their commissioner!) , majority of the new commissioners haven’t even been picked yet let alone approved by the European parliament.
And as #23 pointed out, the commissioner stays until the council (the national governments) replaces him. Yet for some reason you’re downplaying all of these facts, and continue to insist that the EU or, to be really exact, the commission is at fault here. The national government have the final say on this so they’re the ones who is at fault here.
Anyway if you truly believe that this should be stopped I suggest that you contact your MP and MEP, the former can tell your government to start insisting that there needs to be a new commission in place and the latter can initiate a vote of no confidence in the EP to get rid of the current ‘caretaker’ commission.
#27 by Denis Cooper on November 3, 2009 - 11:47 pm
Blaat
1. eulogist ignored Article 214, which states that Commissioners “shall be appointed … for a period of five years” – a fixed term of office.
Hence in Article 215 “A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the Member’s term of office”, and “the President shall be replaced for the remainder of his term of office”.
The only exception made in the first paragraph of Article 214 relates to Article 201, if the Commission resigns after being censured by the European Parliament:
“In this case, the term of office of the Members of the Commission appointed to replace them shall expire on the date on which the term of office of the Members of the Commission obliged to resign as a body would have expired.”
ie the replacements will be appointed for less than five years.
The relevant articles in the treaties start on pdf page 139 here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:321E:0001:0331:EN:pdf
except for Article 201 which is on pdf page 135.
There is no article which gives anyone within the EU the discretion to extend the term of a commissioner; he must be replaced at or before the end of his term, or at or before the end of the term of his predecessor who vacated the post early for one reason or another, and that has not happened .
2. I do indeed ask how national parliamentarians can trust the EU when it can’t even follow its own rules, and I don’t accept that national parliamentarians are likely to be at fault here. Far from “going along with it”, I doubt if more than a tiny minority have the faintest idea that their respective governments have agreed to a proposal which while superficially convenient is in fact unlawful.
3. You can rest assured that I’ve already contacted both my MP and MEPs about this, as well as emailing FAO the UK Foreign Secretary and calling on him to withdraw the accreditation of the person who was the Commissioner nominated by the UK government, until her term expired at midnight on Saturday.
#28 by Blaat on November 4, 2009 - 4:15 pm
article 215 “Members of the Commission shall remain in office until they have been replaced”
article 214 “The Members of the Commission shall be appointed, in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 2, for a period of five year”
Again how can the commission end if they haven’t been replaced and how can they be replaced if there’s no replacement?
2. Why are you blaming the entire EU for this when it’s the national governments who are breaking the rules? Furthermore if they aren’t aware of it (which I’ll be honest I doubt, with the possible exception of the British parliament) then they aren’t really doing their job are they? The national government is accountable to the national government. This doesn’t bode well for the future when Lisbon goes into force which requires the national parliament to participate more in European affairs using the so called the yellow and orange card system.
3. Excellent, I’m quite curious what their answers (or actions) will be. Hopefully your MEP will be able to pull off a vote of no confidence. Or perhaps it will end up in the ECJ letting them solve the problem I described in point one.
#29 by Denis Cooper on November 4, 2009 - 8:16 pm
1. Precisely. The Commissioners other than Barroso should have been replaced before midnight on Saturday; as they weren’t replaced in time, those 26 persons no longer have the legal status of Commissioner.
When I contacted the office of one Commissioner about this some weeks ago I was told:
“It is widely expected that all the current team of Commissioners will be asked by the Council of Ministers to stay on in a caretaker capacity for another couple of months in view of uncertainty as to when the Lisbon Treaty will enter into effect.”
However when I asked:
“But on what legal basis could the Council of Ministers authorise the present Commissioners to remain in post beyond the end of their five year term, which expires on October 31st?”
no answer was forthcoming.
If that part of Article 215 could possibly be construed as over-riding the clearly stated restriction of a five year term, why has the Commission felt it necessary to now go into “a caretaker capacity”?
Even though the treaties only provide for that to happen when the whole Commission has been forced to resign by a censure motion in the Parliament?
2. However the blame is apportioned, the end result is an unlawful Commission whose decisions are now open to legal challenge.
But as it happens I agree with you that it’s the ministers of the national governments who have permitted this breach of the treaties, through the Council of Ministers, an EU institution, although with the complicity of and apparently at the instigation of the Commission, another EU institution.
So what’s wrong with summarising that as “the EU” breaking its own rules?
Those MPs who actually take an interest, rather than just serving their time as lobby fodder, have enough trouble keeping tabs on what ministers are doing at home with delegated powers, let alone what they’re doing with them in Brussels. I don’t suppose it’s much different in other member states.
3. I’m awaiting responses, and if I get no answers soon then I’ll chase them up – for whatever good that would do.