

The EU presidency

Name a famous Belgian

Two minor but competent figures will be president and high representative of the EU

See article

Readers' comments




Why should a powerful leader be wanting to have a more powerful above him?

As long as those posts are chosen by European "leaders" - not by the European citizens - it will remain to be filled with non-challenging "personas".

Whoever wants to change this has to be ready to give more direct power to the European people.
- But this is the last thing their leaders want . . . this is the European "intrinsic plight".


Europe is not a country; it is a union of countries sharing a certain number of policies. The process of tightening the union is not a matter of "shiny blabbering" and should NOT be directed outwards, but rather inwards. It is a delicate diplomatic effort requiring a person of consensus who will (indeed!) avoid overshadowing national leaders for now (and probably for the ten years or so to come). Strengthening the union is not an overnight process – and electing a strong charismatic leader for the position is a double-edged sword: 50% chances of success… 50% chances to create strong opposition/division among member states. In other words, it would have been a mistake. As for T. Blair, it is a blessing he was not chosen: one thing we are sure (and united) about in Europe is that we do not want to be represented by someone famous for sharing tastes and political decisions with the most incompetent leader ever, i.e. G.W. Bush.

Finally, let's discuss a bit more about this "renowned & charismatic personality" issue that The Economist has been blabbering about for weeks. Again, G.W. Bush certainly was known before being elected thanks to his father – no need to comment the outcome. Who else? Pick a piece of paper and list all *foreign* presidents currently in office that you know of (i.e. spontaneously, without looking them up). Then, eliminate all those you had never heard of *before* they started their presidential campaign and/or were elected. How many are there left?


They might be not as well known, charismatic and connected as for instance Blair, but I think they're capable. That is in the end what should be the decisive factor.
I agree that they are now, more than ever because they have disposed their own ambitions to a certain extent, unlikely to share much power on the global scene with China and the USA.

But van Rompuy is a capable, intellectual man. His communication channels and connections might not be as good as that of better known politicians, but his abilities to make good rather than 'for the sake of it' compromises is worth something, especially in Europe. The fact that he is well spoken in more than his own language will do him some good as well, at least I hope it will.

The English candidate was to be expected on that post. England meddles in foreign affairs more than in any other area. And EU bureaucrats don't seem to mind that. I think its not bad in this case either. Some more influence from England might steer us towards more attention to Afghanistan, where a lot remains to be done.

Take care!


Congratulations to the EU on appointing two complete nonentities to what are supposed to be the "top jobs". I'm glad to see that the EU has decided to become invisible on the world stage.


A political heavyweight for each position might have seemed more intuitive, but would have drawn greater opposition from national leaders. It would have set public expectations unrealistically high (the press is eager enough as it is to use grandiose titles like "the President of Europe"). The more low-key approach may not be particularly exciting, but for the time being it's probably more conducive to long-term institutional strength and achievement.

Besides, we're talking about Brussels, where dullness is de rigueur, and for a good reason: one can't simultaneously please all political tastes, cultures and traditions, and that's why the Germans have Merkel and the Italians have, well, Berlusconi.


There are few political jobs in Europe more deadly than PM of Belgium, a country that seems to love nothing more than fighting between language groups and being in crisis. He will be well prepared and being president of the EU will be like a holiday for him by comparison.

Some Dude

I find it hilarious that Europe likes to lecture China on the values of democracy, then they select their two highest posts through virtually the same method as China selects its President, through back room dealings. While there may be a bit more transparency in the European process than the Chinese, the method is still the same. Lets just get all the party and national leaders together and choose someone who would never be selected by the constituents he is supposed to represent. This is like if all the governors in the US selected the president with no input from the people. Nevermind any kind of popular vote, since the Lisbon treaty showed that could be quite embarrassing when the people's true preferences can be seen.


I’ve said here in an earlier post: “Why should a powerful leader be wanting to have a more powerful above him?” This is surely so in the case of the EU Council President. But reading some comments on this issue here, I want to stress again that the post of a President of the EU Council is not to be mistaken with that of an “executive EU President” – what Herman Van Rompuy is NOT! This is last but not least so because of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Germany with Judgment of June 30th 2009. The whole judgement is quite voluminous, but here is the link to the press release in English language: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/press/bvg09-072en.html

The ruling of the German Constitution says, in short, that the power to pick and choose political leaders is granted only to the German Sovereign – not to a body where the German electorate or its elected representatives are only a segment of.

If an EU president would be given executive powers over German subjects, then, consequently, would this be unconstitutional . . . unless the German Constitution is rewritten or changed, which requires the approving votes of two thirds of the members of the Bundestag (Parliament) and two-thirds of the votes of Bundesrat (the Laender Chamber); a matter which did not take place yet.

Since a President of the European Union thus anyway would not have decision-making or executive powers over the German Sovereign, the role of the EU Council President is reduced to that of a consensus-finder inwards and a mere representative of the EU outwards. My personal believe is that Mr Van Rompuy is for this purpose qualified. He is an intellectual multilinguist and an experienced negotiator between diverse ethnic groupings.

The real “united” political clout towards the outside world, representing the European Union, will be at the post of a High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Lady that got this post will have a diplomatic powerhouse coming with her position. If Catherine Ashton has the political standing for such an “uber-office” can only time tell. She has 5 years to prove it.


It is really amazing with what kind of crap people come up when they try "reasoning" their weird xenophobia and euro-hatred. Either those authors have serious comprehension problems due to physical handicaps maybe . . . or they just lack some of those cells which are considered “grey” . . . that determine the IQ of a human being:

We just saw a process whereby 27 INDEPENDENT government leaders, all democratically elected by their respective peoples, chose in a democratic process (one man one vote) their (and only “their”) favorite representative. Whom they choose is their business alone, as in any other “club”, and nobody else’s. But at least needed their pick the approval from the ‘democratically’ – by ALL eligible Europeans – elected European Parliament! This alone makes it democratically fully legitimate.

And this is way more democratic than how the heads of state of such respected countries as Great Britain, Sweden or Denmark are chosen, since the latter are not even “semi-democratically” picked, but they inherited their positions . . . without ANY need to “perform” or at least to acquire some kind of public approval.

One of those English commentators (Grobanista) quoted a British conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan, saying: "How appropriate: an undemocratic process to appoint a lifelong bureaucrat to a post created by a treaty on which we never voted." This is an excellent example, why it’s so “fundamentally weird” that mainly conservative Brits raise an artificial fuss here, over the supposedly “undemocratic” EU procedures, while the U.K. even having a COMPLETELY UNELECTED legislative branch, the Upper House.

And even though only an *English* woman and a Belgian man are designated for the two new EU positions, they continue to slander ‘xenophobically’ the socially and economically more successful (and thus by them most hatred) EU members France and Germany "to plot against the Europe": “Europe will now be a nothing, and France and Germany, two sets of people with opposing neuroses” (Dr. BJ). Moreover, when the same commentators state here: "In a very recent poll, 55% of Britons would want the UK to leave the EU" (Grobanista), then this is at all events a sign that the *British democracy* does not function . . . and not that of the whole EU.

The very same Tories that are now lamenting over a supposedly “undemocratic process”, as “populist” Daniel Hannan did (if Grobanista cited him correctly), just announced that Tory leader David Cameron had abandoned his Jan 2008 pledge to hold an EU referendum when winning the next general elections. Those “cheap populists” paddle back now since an also resent poll, published in The Times on Nov 3rd, shows the Conservatives have registered a fall in their support, dropping to 39% - reportedly "at the lower end of their recent range".

Grobanista, if it is true what you say (and not just wishful thinking), then those “55%” should vote the UKIP or the BNP into office at the upcoming elections. Both parties are promising to hold a referendum on Britain’s remaining in the European Union. . . . But please spare the rest of us content Europeans with your steady accusations and “wimp-laments”.

But I assume that those spineless whiners here don’t even have the guts for this either . . . . because then they would need to blame someone else for their "plight".

Thus, to me and for many here on this blog is it quite obvious that those British commentators, as highlighted here, have a “neurosis” . . . and not the people of France, Germany or those of other proud European countries.


Two complete nonentities ! Howls of derisive laughter from the world at large. Probably will be about as useful as Tony Blair has been in his Middle East role.

Vinny L.

Good decent picks!

None of them are tainted by the disgrace that is Bush. They can live off the good will of Obama and continue to work on Europes unity.


People think of who the US will call when it wants to call Europe and they have trouble seeing someone like Van Rompuy fill the post, deeming him to be a light weight. Belgium may not be a big country, but it's been at the centre of the European project from the start, and perhaps people could stop for a minute and ask themselves whether someone who was prime minister of a EU country isn't even more legitimate as a representative of Europe than someone like Obama, who had never any experience of high (cabinet) office was to become president of the world's super power?
As someone rightly said, let's not forget the kind of muppets we've had to put up with in that position in the recent past, for one thing. Van Rompuy is actually a citizen's dream: dull, uncharismatic, introverted, but good at governance: exactly what anyone seriously interested in being properly governed (citizens) should want for their country. Ofcourse the EU didn't choose a big hitter. With people like little Nicolas deciding? Over his dead (little) body. But who knows, Van Rompuy might be just the ticket, and with a little luck we might have a principled person, selfless enough to stand up to the big (small) guys at crucial times. The existence of the post itself was in any case going to provide potentially anyone with more substance then Barosso, and that's a rather good thing.


Addendum to my previous comment.
David Cameron !! - now you really do have to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after this absurdity.


Little step for the EU big step for Europe! Despite all the doubts and skepticism lets give time to the new leadership to prove themselves. I just remember that in 1969 the world press said that a certain Helmut Kohl would never be able to manage his party and it was unthinkable that he would ever become a challenge for the SPD. Well they got it all wrong!

So don't run to fast to easy conclusions. Let's give time to time and don't despise the EU leaders. They might be not very smart but they are not that stupid and if they were that's europeans fault because they chose them.

And why can't a Belgian be a EU president? Jean Monet was not a charismatic leader but he was the one that carried out the first steps of the union. Ludwig Ehrard was not as charismatic as Kennedy but he was the one that managed Germany into the waters of the economic miracle and European Integration. I can continue if someone is short of knowledge in history...

Why do some people still fall for the charisma of Ceasers and despise the good working man? As far as I remember Hitler was also charismatic...So let us give them some time before running on stupid conclusions shall we?


To Tomas Marny,

Your comments are well built and your case is noteworthy.
I, however, fully disagree with it. As oppose to what you said:
It’s an excellent start of “EU after LT”!
As the northern English would say, the EU doesn't "want" (meaning "being interested in") to become yet another powerful hyper state like the USA, China still many years away, the USSR in the past, or Brazil light years away.
The European Union was built for peace, the best possible justice and as much solidarity as not to stifle free enterprise, the engine of prosperity. Democracy is another fundamental item: all freedoms guaranteed and institutions gradually moving towards being fully representative.
The European Union seems to be evolving to become a large, very large Switzerland. That would be its wisest course and certainly the best for humankind in general.
Have you ever known the name of any Swiss yearly president or, for that matter, important politician?
Those who prefer a powerful Europe competing with the USA for superpower status, are generally Empire nostalgic (like most English, not British) or new member states that have a grudge against having been controlled by the USSR and now wish a psychological redress.
Press wasn't free in those countries during the years of debate from the fifties to the creation of the EU in 93. So many eastern EU citizens are not aware that a basic and structural feature for the EU is its low profile in World affairs: helpful whenever possible, full stop.
Of course, this is one of the ingredients for Euroscepticism mainly in England (repeat not Britain) and elsewhere.
From my point of view and millions like me the best that can happen to the Europe Union is this gradual approach to a novel political organization with all its fits and starts, fudge galore and institutions being always a few years behind the actions of its citizens.
Naturally, opinions like yours are very needed but I do hope mine will become predominant as it seems to be the case now and for some years already.
Most of us are not interested to live in an aggressive superstate always worried about security, arrogant and depressed.
We are interested in living in a very peaceful, highly cultivated, highly civilized, reasonably prosperous, very free, just, with sufficient solidarity and very cooperative society with the rest of the world.
Idealistic? Maybe. No great project was ever built without a lot of idealism.


Decline of The European Union.

Lisbon came as a Treaty like a bad taste medicine "for your own good", ratified by (read "imposed to") many European nationals without they being allowed to vote, "mercifully" saved at the second round where it was voted, basically sold to the last skeptics by means of negotiations and warm reassurances, it looked like.

The result is visible on Thursday the 19th of November: gathered to choose a 'leader' of Europe, at a time convinced and truly convincing leaders of all European countries showed what their real interest in the all blob was: none. All was ready by the dinner, now let me go take my Eurostar/Thalys/ICE/"name your transport" back to my homeland.

Mr van Rompuy miraculously held together for a few months an in fact dual, illogical land, made a long time ago to keep two worlds apart, as it may appear from History. He succeeded in a desperate situation where his predecessors had pathetically failed for a long time.

But for how long? The cynics could say that he needed to leave leading his country after a few months just because the situation was indeed unworkable: are Flemish and Wallonians just too grossly different in their culture? Are Bulgarians and Swedish just too far away in their reasoning? Does Europe as one thing make any sense? And I say it as a former "strong pro-European".

Fact is: a low profile candidate, with all due respect to a certainly very decent person, but little known abroad, with (yet more to be) limited powers, was elected as the head of such an "important" institution.

In other words: all single European Governments wanted to keep control in their hands and from along their corridors, just like now. From their own country. Sad show of how Europe as one is certainly not succeeding beating nationalism and the importance of national power seats, nor at making people work together. People are stubborn, whatever the answer to my earlier question might be.

Then came the post for Baroness Ashton. Again, with all due respect to a unknown to me but surely decent person: what has to do a very well prepared Economist with not really much worldwide political experience, If I should judge by reading the first press reports, in the post of "foreign policy chief"?

The ignorant could argue: this last European institution was purportedly born ill. Or, well, 'figurative': it gives the image of itself, while games are played elsewhere. Of course it's much more complicated that that, but still: who dares digging for the details?

Of course I might be wrong. Of course might all these newly elected officers show big charisma and get the right way for Europe, and all be good and fine. Only I saw little charisma and smartness in European institutions in the last years. It's a long trend: some nice initiatives and ideas, the initial idealism was great, but for the rest.

I can't help against a bitter feeling in my mouth and a good deal of disillusionment about how sadly things went tonight and how they're generally going in politics. Reading embarrassed press entries that can't do other than report the news as-is doesn't make it any better. Maybe Euro-skeptics had it right at once?


So, in the end, the two top positions are filled by choosing a president from a small country that was a founding member of the EEC, agreed upon by the Franco-German tandem, and handing out the 2nd place position to a British citizen, thus guaranteeing the support of the three largest countries. Not an auspicious start - American candidates for example tend to avoid the appearance of a "big-states only" strategy.
While I believe the choices will be competent I have two principal complaints:
1) Mr. Van Rompuy is whole-heartedly against Turkish membership and committed to the idea that "Europe" is a Christian nation. Aside from the fact I disagree, I think someone could have been found who was at least a bit more diplomatic about these points, being a little less ideological. I would have at least expected the French leader to prefer someone who was not quite such a religious bigot.
2) Despite the fact Mr. Van Rompuy does not come from a big country, his presence will not reassure the smaller countries, particularly, but not only, in Central Europe.
There is a reason American Presidents are chosen through primaries and direct elections; it is not just to establish the "winner" - the system also exists to choose democratically the "loser" so that those in the minority will accept the public verdict.
I can predict there will be great difficulty on the part of the "losing" countries and political parties to accept this verdict in the coming years.


At least they didn't take Blair.

A country that is so strongly anti-EU and didn't even join the Euro shouldn't have gotten any of the two positions.
However Ashton at least is one of the few British supporters of the EU.


I agree mainly with Tomas Marny, but would suggest giving the experiment "Europe" more time. For some it goes too slow . . . and for others way too fast. I believe that this was a compromise of the two main EU directions: Between the ‘reluctant expanders’, but 'lasting' integrationists – led by the “original six" - and the ever expanding but just 'loose free marketers', led by Great Britain. Only the future will show whereto the train “Lisbon Treaty” will take us. As for now, is it still open for both directions.

My personal guess is that the European Parliament will play the decisive role here in future: If it manages over time to increase its power and influence, then we will see one day what Tomas Marny is missing in the moment. If the role of the Parliament stays so limited, then the project “Europe” will be stalled accordingly. This is just the “rule of political logics” . . . which is, last but not least, determined by the future will of the European peoples.


EU is a league of democratic nations, not a democracy itself. So it does not need too powerful leaders but rather well tempered negotiators to adjust the needs and wills of individual countries.

I suppose Lady Ashton and Mr. Van Rompuy are wise appointees to their respective posts. Stronger political leaders would not have the needed democratic support - I don't even believe in strong political leaders.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage March 15th, 14:43
Bits and mortar: Babbage visits Ada's
Babbage March 15th, 10:22
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55


Products & events