Comments on: The 2009 EU Troika

By: Pelle

Pelle — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:46:19 +0000

As for Bildt, isn’t the first of his problems his association with the neocons’ Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?

By: Pelle

Pelle — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:40:36 +0000

I would like to add that many Brits would be as opposed to Blair as council president as, say, the Belgians. He was kicked out because of the Iraq war….if he now comes back in any controllatory role, well, that’s not part of the deal.
Second. He sold us Brits on the Lisbon treaty being minimalist, with no strong EU president. But latterly it’s said he will only consider the job if the president is given extensive powers. So, if he does come back into a powerful job, the Lisbon treaty already having been ratified, it represents the worst kind of bait and switch.
Blair – no way.

By: eric vaes

eric vaes — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:47:58 +0000

I welcome Stanley Crossick’s blog on the 2009 EU Troika which is quite pertinent .
As a convinced European , it will be critical that during the French Presidency the Member States show (finally) their determination to appoint a well balanced but especially competent EU troika which will also be teamwork oriented . Lets avoid some of the bad compromises & appointments from the past which have unnecessarily weakened the EU as a global political & trade force .
I agree with Stanley that Angela Merkel would be a good candidate as EC President .

By: stanley’s blog : The new EU Diplomatic Service

stanley’s blog : The new EU Diplomatic Service — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:24:45 +0000

[...] The earlier post of 27 January gave the overall picture. Five points: [...]

By: Alan Mayhew

Alan Mayhew — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:18:23 +0000

No I don’t like your Merkel for President idea – she is needed in Berlin and there is no obvious candidate to replace her there.

By: Stanley Crossick

Stanley Crossick — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:43:18 +0000

Sonwat: I did say,”Parliamentary manoeuvring is inevitable and is likely to involve the appointment of Parliament’s President” but dis not include this Presidency in the trio package. It will inevitably come up in the negotiations for the appointment of the Commission President and ‘parmanent’ appointment of the Foreign Policy Chief

By: Simon Duke

Simon Duke — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:42:08 +0000

I would agree with Stanley’s general optimism regarding the potential of the Treaty of Lisbon to lead to common external policies and to enhance the standing of the EU internationally. I would, however, like to mirror David Spence’s concern since the attractiveness of the top posts to the names mentioned will also depend upon developments at lower levels. This applies particularly to the High Representative’s (HR)position and to the creation of a European External Action Service that is genuinely able to assist, not hinder, the HR. Progress on the latter has been slow and interinstitutional friction, to which Spence refers, may yet ensure less streamlining and encourage more turf consciousness.

Such a scenario could place the HR in an even more difficult position between the institutions as well as the Member States (on the latter point, the two declarations attached to the Lisbon Treaty on CFSP give cause for concern). It may also have knock-on effects for the other members of the troika and would certainly complicate their roles.

Hopefully, I shall be proven wrong but, if not, it is doubtful that candidates of the calibre mentioned will be attracted to the HR position. Nor will the troika achieve the potential to which Stanley refers. So, let’s continue the discussion but keep an eye on what’s going on at lower levels.

By: sonwat

sonwat — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:42:40 +0000

Stanley’s ideas about the prospective EU Troika are, as ever, provocative and on the mark. He rightly says that there should be a geographical/political balance between the posts on offer, but appears to have overlooked the question of the European Parliament Presidency, which should also be included in the ‘package’ – especially since, post Lisbon, the EP’s powers will widen so considerably. Given the fact that Liberals and Democrats wield more power than ever before at European Level, they should be included somewhere in this quartet of posts. Guy Verhofstadt or Anders Fogh Rasmussen would both make excellent Council Presidents, for example.

By: Horst Dengler

Horst Dengler — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:38:03 +0000

I just want to remind you that 2009 is a general election year in Germany. I cannot imagine Mrs Merkel leaving her present job as party leader during this period. After all, she is a successful leader of her party which is currently clearly ahead in national polls. As a further remark, I think the European Council President cannot come from a country that is not part of the Eurozone, Schengen area or not even the Charter which is important also for the external relations of the EU. How could such a president credibly present these policies? To start with, I could imagine Solana II/Barroso II and one newcomer, maybe Juncker; maybe as a surprise move Zapatero if he loses the elections. Solana would then have to leave

By: Le Croche-Pied » Blog Archive » Faut-il que les sondages décident du Président du Conseil européen?

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:02:24 +0000

[...] 2008. Toujours est-il que cette proposition de VGE vient juste après celle de Alain Lamassoure, laissé en commentaire sur le blog de Stanley Crossick : Le Conseil européen devrait procéder à une audition publique de chaque candidat, en donnant [...]

By: stanley’s blog : How to appoint European Council President

stanley’s blog : How to appoint European Council President — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:22:44 +0000

[...] Lamasourre, MEP, (in his comment of 4 February) came up with a great idea for the appointment of the President of the European Council, which is [...]

By: David Spence

David Spence — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:14:42 +0000

All interesting comments to nourish the corridor debates, but other key issues are just as important – will their staffs play their roles t lower levels? Or will the national backwoodsmen hold out for maintenance of the old system at lower levels – i.e. will the foreign minister’s staff chair all cfsp working groups? Will they have someone in the Commission seat opposite them (given the Relex Commissioner will be chairing, will there be another Commissioner in the opposite seat?)and what of the legal rivalries and turf battles we have seen for the last ten years? Over or reinvigorated? Your guess may be as good as mine, but these are thecrucial issues in the effort to make the new system work better than its hidebound predecessor.

By: Guillaume Belmont

Guillaume Belmont — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:18:03 +0000

Well, interesting and useful to think about all this now. True that the first job holders will define their own positions and work out the procedures and habits for working together. But I’d rather not address the whole issue in terms of names: we’ll almost inevitably end up with a line-up we cannot think of now. Who would have put any money on Barroso in 2004? Merkel certainly has many qualities for the job, but just how likely is she to leave Berlin for Brussels? These are mere speculations at the moment.

I therefore strongly agree both with Alain Lamassoure and Simon Hix (though not on the nonsense bit It is crucial to establish procedures that deliver as much accountability as possible. This is true for all top jobs – and we could include the EP Presidency: “technical agreements” between PES and EPP should be over now.

Full-blown electoral competition for the Presidency of the Commission + some sort of public beauty contest for the Presidency of the Council would make for a good start. The two other top jobs should allow to fine-tune the political and geographical balance.

So the PES needs a strong candidate against Barroso – this is why I would in any case add the other Rasmussen (Poul Nyrup) to the picture. Signals from the PES so far are rather mixed. If they believe they cannot get more votes than the EPP, which might well be the case, they could be tempted by yet another power-sharing arrangement with the EPP. This would be a missed opportunity.

By: Dieudonné

Dieudonné — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:54:54 +0000

Interesting names and comments. What about Rasmussen (the current Danish PM)? If he continues to reconcile his country to the EU and vice versa, while managing a high-tax and welfare economy successfully, supping with the populist devil but keeping him/her at bay outside government, doesn’t he deserve a shout?

By: Stanley Crossick

Stanley Crossick — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:16:27 +0000

Je me rallie à l’idée d’Alain Lamassoure de ne pas laisser le procédure aux tractations secrètes entre chefs de gouvernement. Sa proposition d’intoduire une vrai procédure publique devrait garantir l’émergence d’un bon président, et au même temps, introduire un fort élément d’une democracie européenne, comme mentionnée par Simon Hix.

By: crossick

crossick — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:48:00 +0000

Sorry Simon that you think it’s a lot of nonsense. Under the new treaty the other two posts will be very important if strong candidates are chosen. To become Commission president,the candidate will need an absolute majority in the 2009-14 European Parliament. It’s hard to imagine that this will be achievable without agreement between the PPE and the Socialists. The result of the parliamentary elections must be taken into account. What does this mean? The most obvious explanation is that the candidate must belong to the party which receives the largest number of seats.

By: Thomas L.

Thomas L. — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:32:04 +0000

Je trouve interessant que Alain Lamassoure ne soutienne pas ouvertement Tony Blair. Ce dernier a fait son plaidoyer devant les cadres de l’UMP, parti de Alain Lamassoure, et a recu la benediction de Nicolas Sarkozy. Mr Lamassoure reste-t-il a convaincre de la position de la France qui soutient officiellement la candidature de Tony Blair au futur poste de Président du Conseil européen?

By: Alain Lamassoure, député européen

Alain Lamassoure, député européen — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:06:31 +0000

Comme toujours, l’analyse de Stanley Crossick est très fine, nourrie d’une immense expérience de la vie communautaire et inspirée par le plus authentique esprit européen.

Il est clair que, lorsqu’on crée une nouvelle fonction, le premier titulaire lui donne à la fois sa dimension et son style. Les Etats-Unis ont eu la chance historique et le talent de trouver des personnalités de très grande envergure pour exercer les premiers postes de Président (George Washington) au Président de la Cour Suprême (le grand juge Marshall) en passant par les secrétaires d’Etat et au Trésor (Jefferson et Hamilton). De même, en France, le général de Gaulle a marqué la fonction présidentielle de manière indélébile.

Dans le cas qui nous occupe, le triumvirat très original mis en place par le traité de Lisbonne exige que le choix des trois premiers titulaires se fasse de manière concomitante. Certes, la qualité des personnes doit être le premier critère, mais cela ne peut être le seul : d’une part, le traité ne prévoyant pas de hiérarchie entre eux, et les champs de compétence étant amenés à se recouper fréquemment, la réussite dépendra aussi de la bonne entente entre les trois personnes ; d’autre part, si l’on veut que les gouvernements et les peuples reconnaissent sans réserve la légitimité des nouveaux dirigeants européens – désormais distincts des dirigeants nationaux -, il faut qu’ils se reconnaissent tous en eux : un certain équilibre politique – au moins entre droite et gauche -, géographique (nord et sud), démographique (grands et petits pays), et historique (anciens et nouveaux membres) devra être recherché.

La sagesse conseille d’attendre les élections européennes pour lancer le processus : c’est le parti menant la coalition victorieuse – en pratique le PPE ou le PSE – qui pourra faire prévaloir son candidat à la présidence de la Commission.

Pour ce qui concerne le Président du Conseil, plutôt que de lancer des noms, le plus utile aujourd’hui me paraît être de proposer une procédure. Une fonction aussi éminente ne peut pas être laissée aux tractations secrètes entre chefs de gouvernement. Les candidats devraient être invités à se déclarer publiquement avant une certaine date. Le Conseil européen devrait procéder à une audition publique de chaque candidat, en donnant à chacun le même temps de parole, avec retransmission télévisée. Pour le choix du premier titulaire, cette procédure serait particulièrement opportune : chaque candidat serait ainsi amené à préciser publiquement comment il conçoit cette fonction nouvelle, ses relations avec les autres institutions européennes, etc. Il serait ainsi beaucoup plus difficile aux chefs de gouvernement de se mettre d’accord sur le nom de la personnalité qui les gênerait le moins – ce qui, au contraire, serait inévitable en cas de procédure secrète.

C’est à la lumière de cette analyse que je réagis à la mise en avant du nom d’Angela Merkel. Elle a évidemment toutes les qualités pour ce poste. Encore cela suppose-t-il que le Président de la Commission ne soit pas un PPE, et qu’elle soit intéressée dès maintenant par la fonction. Or, elle n’est qu’au début de sa fonction de chancelière d’Allemagne. Si elle y réussit, elle préfèrera évidemment continuer à Berlin débarrassée de son encombrant allié du SPD, et si elle échoue, il n’est pas de l’intérêt de l’Union de faire apparaître les grandes fonctions européennes comme un lot de consolation des échecs nationaux. Faisons un appel à candidatures, arrêtons les manœuvres de couloir, organisons une compétition publique et loyale et que le meilleur (la meilleure) gagne !
Alain LAMASSOURE

By: Simon Hix

Simon Hix — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:12:47 +0000

What a load of nonsense! The key issue for me is whether the social democrats will put up a rival candidate to Barroso in next year’s European elections. The Liberals, Greens and the Left will almost certainly do so, and perhaps even the UEN. Schultz is trying to do a deal with Poettering (no doubt stitched up in Berlin), to keep Barroso in return for Schultz becoming EP President. But, if the pressure grows on the PES, the socialist leaders may be forced to put a name forward (e.g. Felipe Gonzalez?!). And if they do, we really would have something we could call “Euro-democracy” for the first time. The other posts you mention are largely irrelevant in comparison to the “big one” of the Commission President.

By: Le Croche-Pied » Blog Archive » Seul Tony…suite

Le Croche-Pied » Blog Archive » Seul Tony…suite — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:45:52 +0000

[...] d’autres nationalités. Il faut aussi lire, cet article, très détaillé sur les questions de Stanley Crossick reprenant certaines de mes interrogations sur les compétences des posts introduits par le traité [...]

By: Speculation about EU top posts « From Brussels with…

Speculation about EU top posts « From Brussels with… — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:51:03 +0000

[...] Speculation about EU top posts Filed under: Brussels day to day business — Elaine Rudolphi @ 00.19 From Stanley Crossick’s blog: The 2009 EU Troika [...]

By: fraser cameron

fraser cameron — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:00:28 +0000

Not many people will be happy to have this debate opened so early. As Harold Wilson once said ‘a week is a long time in politics’. EU priorities are to secure ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and to protect the Union from the looming US recession.

Inevitably there will be horse trading about these positions and much will depend on who is available at the time. Of course it would be good to have a balance but this is rarely the determining factor. One would hope that competence would be the principal criteria but one cannot be too hopeful (remember Santer).

Of the candidates listed Belgium would almost certainly veto Blair as the Brits have twice vetoed Belgian candidates for Commission President. Merkel would be excellent but she is almost irreplaceable for the CDU in Germany.

At present I would put my money on Barroso, Juncker and Solana. This would be a solid team who should be able to work well together.

By: ????

???? — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:44:21 +0000

As accustomed, Brussels Guru Stanley is starting, what can be a decisive debate for EU’s future.

According to today’s Independent: “Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, is pressing hard for Mr Blair to become a heavyweight president of Europe. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, may come under domestic pressure to back a rival candidate but is thought likely to rally behind M. Sarkozy. Mr Blair enjoys strong support at the European Commission in Brussels.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/allies-say-blair-wants-to-be-president-of-eu-776752.html

You couldn’t find anyone suitable from the “new” Member States?

By: JO

JO — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:11:25 +0000

We are entering a new dark age. This is a nightmare.

By: Blog » Blog Archive » The 2009 EU Troika

Blog » Blog Archive » The 2009 EU Troika — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:22:51 +0000

[...] crossick wrote an interesting post today on The 2009 EU TroikaHere’s a quick excerptA new EU Commission takes office on 1 November 2009. The Lisbon Treaty is expected to come into force officially on 1 January 2009 but this date may slip. There is talk of a postponement until 1 November, but this would be of doubtful … [...]