Comments on: Appointment of EU Ambassador to US: a bad practice continued

By: Stanley Crossick

Stanley Crossick — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:19:34 +0000

Thanks David for taking the trouble to comment at length
A major issue is indeed, how much supranationality and how much intergovernmentalism do we want. It is not ‘either, or’.

The key underlying principles must in any case be transparency, integrity, inclusiveness (euality) and solidarity.

I’m in favour of ‘opening up’ the Council and increasing the democracy of
Pariament.

The role of the Commission should not change nor should it be ‘elected’ but greater transparency in the nomination of Commissioners is desirable

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:47:39 +0000

I very much share your sentiments. The EEAS may not be in operation yet but Almeida’s appointment may indeed have negative repercussions for future recruitment into the Service, especially from the national diplomatic services. We have already seen a frosty reaction to the appointment from Carl Bildt and demands for ‘clarification’ from Pierre Lellouche directed at Catherine Ashton.

You also point out the possible conflict of interest when you observe that Almeida is one of the small preparatory group on the EEAS. Indeed, and the timing is all the more unfortunate when a draft proposal on adapting the rules for EU staff, setting out the terms of recruitment into the Service, is circulating within the Commission.

I cannot help but wonder how all of this looks to Washington. Still, Almeida will be able to look forward to less cramped and more secure accommodation in the delegation’s new premises.

By: David

David — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:01:49 +0000

I agree that this is an unsightly dispute, likely to lead to further turf wars. The earlier dispute between Commissioner Patton and Council of Ministers Secretary General Solana is not resolved by the Lisbon Treaty fudge. The dispute, dating from de Gaulle’s nationalistic attempt to distort and grab the powers of the Council, cannot be resolved by the illogicalities of shared functions in two supposedly independent institutions. It is now continuing at a different more expensive and embarrassing level for all the world to see.

At the core is the unresolved question of whether the EU should be a supranational Community system as envisaged by Monnet and Schuman or an intergovernmental system run by the ministers in a secretive Council — still with little democratic oversight (warmed over Gaullism that turns all public posts into party patronage and political nepotism). Real authority (the first Commission was called the High Authority) comes from honesty, impartiality and inclusion of the interests of all Europeans.

It is also a question of glitz over substance. Glitz comes from giving inaccurate or exaggerated titles like Ambassador to posts where the office has different functions from national diplomacy. Substance still comes from the supranational Community base (the two remaining communities, the Economic Community and Euratom and the heritage of the first). Only a little is added by other areas such as CFSP if the 27 cannot provide a coherent foundation of agreement based on public trust, real democracy, open institutions and the European rule of law. Trust is the principal victim.

The question is really: Do Europeans want a Commission retaining its legal, delegated powers that encourage it to be impartial and independent and to speak for all, including minorities? Or should the Commission become the lap-dog of ministers, sometimes acting like party politicians rather than Statesmen/ women? If Europeans prefer an impartial, independent Commission to power politics, then the Commission should be encouraged to nominate a competent candidate and the Council should reform itself, then support, encourage and protect the delegated powers they provided in treaties. All institutions must encourage more democratic, open assessment and the European rule of law.