Quite apart from the presumptiousness inherent in today's news that Chris Patten fancies himself for one of the job EU jobs that will be created if and only if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, it is interesting to note the language used in the FT to report the story.
You will remember the Government made a song and dance about the decision to change the title of one of the new positions from 'EU Foreign Minister', as it appeared in the original EU Constitution, to "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy", as it now appears in the Lisbon Treaty.
This title change was one of the main arguments used by the Government when it argued again and again that the Lisbon Treaty was "fundamentally different" from the rejected EU Constitution, in order to backpeddle out of its commitment to hold a referendum on the Treaty.
At the time, Open Europe, as well as many others, pointed out that the change was so cosmetic as to be utterly irrelevant.
Even the-then Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, admitted it:
"It's the original job as proposed but they just put on this long title - High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and also vice President of the Commission. It's the same job [.] it's still going to be the same position." (Irish Independent, 24 June 2007)
We argued that the title of "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" was so deliberately long and awkward that it would inevitably be ditched in favour of the much easier-sounding "EU Foreign Minister" (while also pointing out that none of the important bits about the role had changed - such as the fact that he or she will be a member of the Commission, thereby giving the supranational body a role in foreign policy for the first time, or the fact that he or she will be nominated by a qualified majority vote, or that his or her proposals will be voted on by QMV...etc etc etc.)
And lo and behold, it is happening already. The FT today talks about "Europe's first foreign minister".
Is David Miliband going to write to the editor and correct this 'error'?