The EU summit: not a complete mess, honest

The final countdown is on to the summit tomorrow that will decide who will be Europe's first permanent President and Foreign Minster, and the media is awash with speculation on the various candidates.

Looking at all the hoo-ha it is entirely possible that the decision making could drag on until Friday, or even the weekend if the Swedish EU Presidency fails to hammer out a consensus. The Times quotes Cecilia Malmström, Sweden's Europe Minister, saying, "I would not say it is a complete mess, but there is no agreement still."

Presumably the revelation that the front-runner for the job, Belgian PM Herman Van Rompuy, is a groaning EU federalist and champion of direct EU taxation might have gone some way to dampening his star - (although we won't hold our breath).

With so much secrecy surrounding the process (who's a candidate, who isn't?) and the inevitable horse-trading that goes with any move to hand out plum EU jobs like these, it's really difficult to predict what we're going to end up with. As Martin Winter from Sueddeutsche Zeitung said on the Today programme this morning: "It's the first time in ten years that I have no idea what's going to come out of this summit."

All this is an absurd illustration of how out of touch and anti-democratic the EU now is. The EU President will simply be wheeled out at some point over the weekend, with the 500 million citizens he or she is meant to represent expected just to hang on and wait for the outcome.

To fill the time (and get some sense of what the hell is going on) you could do worse than a trip to the bookies for a flutter. We reckon Latvia's Vaira Vike-Freiberga is worth a pop at 25/1...

It's not too late

EU leaders are already running into problems with the ambiguity of the Lisbon Treaty, as they battle it out over whether or not the post should be, as David Cameron put it, "all-singing, all dancing" (Tony Blair), or more low-key and more akin to the kind of role the rotating EU President currently plays (Juncker, Balkenende).

Either way, the EU President will have no democratic mandate whatsoever, so anything other than a low-key role coordinating the EU agenda and similar to the current role of the rotating EU President is essentially a power grab.

The new EU President will earn roughly the same basic salary as the democratically-elected President of the United States, who has the support of 70 million people. The EU President, meanwhile, will have been appointed by a handful of leaders meeting behind closed doors in Brussels, with no input at all from national parliaments, let alone the people.

It is absurd, and a perfect illustration of how out of touch and anti-democratic the EU has become. The President will be appointed by a qualified majority vote in the Council (potentially as few as 18 people) so no country has a veto.

The people pulling the strings in the corridors of Brussels are amazingly arrogant about this fact. A couple of weeks ago an unnamed senior French diplomat pointed out that although most people in Europe will be against the idea of Blair for EU President, because of his position on the Iraq war, that makes no difference at all, because "only public opinion is concerned about this, not the 27 Heads of State and Government that will vote him in".

The current system of rotating EU Presidencies, which Lisbon replaces, is not ideal, but at least it means that prime ministers and presidents who have a current, democratic mandate to rule get to set the agenda in Europe for six months at a time. Appointing an ex-PM or President like Tony Blair will move the EU even further away from the people, as it is likely that whoever it is will have fallen from grace in his or her own country. He is yesterday’s news.

In what other region in the world does an ex-leader get to represent millions of people on the world stage, rubbing shoulders with Barak Obama? This is a huge step backwards for democracy, and the more powerful and grandiose the role, the further the EU will move away from the people.

In some ways, it would be good if Tony Blair was appointed EU President, because it would bring home to many people exactly what the Lisbon Treaty means. It would be the first tangible consequence of the Treaty. For years, people have struggled to understand why they should care about the Treaty, and what it will mean in practice. The Lib Dems, for instance, would hate to see Tony back in power and yet they strongly pushed for this role to be created by supporting the Treaty and conspiring to deny ordinary people a say. Lib Dem delegates at this year’s conference backed a motion saying Blair should not become EU President – but they really should have thought of that much earlier.

In yesterday's Evening Standard Ann McElvoy made a good point about the paradox of giving Blair, the man who divided Europe so deeply over foreign policy, the role of trying to craft a united foreign policy. But she also questioned whether a small nation would have the clout. This dilemma, which EU leaders are now having to confront, exactly represents the problem with the Treaty and the mistaken idea that you can create consensus where none exists by attempting to shoehorn countries through the creation of new institutions.

The Lisbon Treaty is deliberately vague about what he or she will do. The job title is one of many ‘unanswered’ questions about the Treaty, which meant MPs were essentially signing a blank cheque when they agreed to the Treaty last year. It will depend to a certain extent on the job title of the EU Foreign Minister (another unanswered question), and of course the person who takes the job first. To a great extent, the furore over Blair in the media is futile, since ordinary people have absolutely no say at all in who will take this job or what it will look like. By signing the Treaty, we have already handed that power irrevocably to the European Council (unless of course the Czechs now scupper the Treaty).

However, it’s clear that right from the beginning, Tony Blair wanted this role to be a powerful, symbolic and international one. During negotiations on the original EU Constitution back in 2002-2003, Peter Hain, acting on behalf of the UK Government, tried to amend the text so that the EU President would have responsibility for the general "external representation of the Union".

Article 15 of the Lisbon Treaty says: "The President of the European Council shall, at his or her level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy."

However, Peter Hain tried to change it to simply read: "The President of the European Council shall in that capacity ensure, at his level, the external representation of the Union, without prejudice to the responsibilities of the President of the Commission and the Minister for Foreign Affairs." (See here for how Peter Hain tried to cross out the words "on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy" http://european-convention.eu.int/Docs/Treaty/pdf/41699/41699_Art%2021%20Hain%20EN.pdf )

Surely this is a good climate in which to scrap the whole idea. After all, it's not too late.

Open Europe will be supporting a demo tomorrow morning between 10am and 12pm at the Rondpont Schuman in Brussels, just outside the Council, in support of Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who is still holding out against the Treaty.

Come grab your Czech flag and join us!

Hang on a sec

Our new Europe Minister Chris Bryant (the 12th Europe Minister in 12 years of Labour government, no less), has gone immediately on the attack, beginning his new job with an interview with the Sunday Telegraph in which he accused the Conservatives of lying about a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

He said:

"I think your readers will end up feeling deceived by Cameron over the question of a referendum. I would lay a very big wager that they will be very disappointed if there was a Cameron government, because they wouldn't end up having a referendum."

He said Cameron's pledge that he would "not let matters rest there" was deliberately ambiguous, and covered the fact that he would not be able to renegotiate. He said: "Either he's incompetent and he doesn't know this, or he knows and he's downright fibbing."

Now we realise the whole question of Cameron, will he, won't he, is very topical and sensitive at the moment (and here at OE we are waiting with bated breath - see here for roughly what we think they should do, which we are in the process of fleshing out further), but still, for a Labour Minister to try and grab the moral highground on this one is astounding.

It was Labour, you will remember, who promised a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty, indeed, in Gordon Brown's own words, on any treaty "that is acceptable for Britain," and went back on it, denying the people say, despite a poll of more than 130,000 people showing that 88% wanted a referendum. Only a complete hypocrite could now start accusing other people of leading the British people down the garden path on this one.

But that's not all. It now looks like as well as being a hypocrite he might actually be a bit of a fibber himself.

Last night on Newsnight, Bryant pompously corrected presenter Kirsty Wark for suggesting that the issue of candidates for the post of EU President will come up for discussion at the EU summit at the end of this week, as the Guardian (and countless others) have suggested.

Bryant said:

“I hate to correct Newsnight - I know politicians aren’t allowed to do that, but it’s quite possible that there won’t be any discussion at this week’s meeting because the job doesn’t yet exist. We haven’t had the final ratification from the Czech Republic.”

But with Luxembourg PM Jean-Claude Juncker telling Le Monde newspaper today that "If the call went out to me. I would have no reason to refuse to listen," it seems pretty hard to believe that this won't feature strongly on the agenda.

In fact, the good old French Foreign Office have today confirmed in no uncertain terms that the topic will be discussed this week. According to a press release this afternoon, asked if the French government is in favour of Juncker becoming EU President, the reply came:

"These questions will be discussed at the European Council at the end of the week."

Clear, simple and honest.

To be fair though, maybe it's because, as the Evening Standard reported yesterday, as a lowly parliamentary under-secretary of state, the lowest ministerial ranking there is, Bryant isn't going along to the European summit this week, and therefore isn't au fait on what's happening on his own patch.

Who knows.

Irony alert

In the corridors of the European Parliament today Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies climbed onto a chair and announced his bid to apply for the prestigious new role of EU President, should the Lisbon Treaty come into force.

Challenging the idea that the role should go to an ex-Prime Minister or President, as outlined in a recent paper circulated to EU capitals by the Benelux countries, Davies said: "This is a job that should be open to anyone to apply for. And if that means there are millions of applicants to sift through, then it will be worth it in the interests of democracy."

According to PA:

Mr Davies has written to all EU leaders insisting his qualifications for the job are as good as the other candidates suggested so far - including Tony Blair and former Irish president Mary Robinson.

In a dig at Mr Blair, Mr Davies points out that he has never deceived a parliament or been responsible for the illegal invasion of another country. Mr Davies said the "circle of individuals" who could be considered was too small, adding: "The backroom manoeuvrings now taking place are a very poor substitute for an open selection process. We have millions of talented people in Europe, and more than half of them are women, so why is the recruitment net not being cast wider?

"European citizens should be told whether this is just a beauty contest for middle aged males or a professional recruitment exercise intended to select the best person for the job, someone with ideas about how to shape Europe's future."

Mr Davies' letter to EU leaders says: "I am a man in my 50s, with a Cambridge University education and 30 years of political experience, I believe I possess qualifications similar to those of other potential candidates named in the media.

"To my credit I can claim that, unlike some of my rivals, I have never deceived either of the two parliaments to which I have belonged, and I bear no responsibility for the illegal invasion of another country that led to the death of many thousands of innocent people. I hope these facts will not prejudice my application."

The letter adds: "Although the position has not yet been advertised, and the criteria for selection has not been determined, I have no doubt that the Council (of EU leaders) will want to follow good employment practice and to select the best person for the job."

Now, here at Open Europe we rather like Chris Davies - he is a dedicated transparency campaigner and did well on these issues in our ranking of all MEPs earlier in the year.

And he's quite right about the lack of democracy in this EU President post - he or she will be nominated by a qualified majority of 27 heads of state meeting in the EU Council, with no input from national parliaments, let alone the people. (Compare that with the 70 million-strong mandate Barack Obama has).

And the idea that it must be an ex-Prime Minister or President underlines this lack of democracy even further - it basically means we are very likely to end up with someone who has fallen from grace and/or failed to get re-elected in their own country. (Compare that to the current situation, where the democratically-elected heads of state, who have a current mandate from the people, take it in turns to be EU President for 6 months at a time).

All that said, however, it is pretty hypocritical for a Lib Dem politician, of all people, to be complaining about this now. It's a bit late, Chris. Why didn't you raise any of these objections when the Treaty was still being negotiated? Why didn't ANY of the Lib Dems' representatives in either the European Parliament, the Commons or the House of Lords want to discuss all this stuff when they had the opportunity, when the Treaty was going through the Houses of Parliament last year?

Why, instead, have the Lib Dems pushed this Treaty and argued it's the best thing since sliced bread? And when Tory MPs and peers tried in Parliament for the promised referendum to be given to the British people, did the Lib Dems go back on their word and block the motions?

Davies says he doesn't want Tony Blair to become EU President, and neither do a majority of delegates attending the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth earlier this month. But, as we've said before, it is precisely thanks to these so-called 'Liberal Democrats' that this job has been created in the first place. And even if the British government decided it didn't want Tony, that would be tough luck if the a majority of the other EU leaders did.

Welcome to the post-Lisbon Treaty reality.

Lisbon in action

As Irish voters go to the polls today for the second time on the Lisbon Treaty (welcome to Venezuela the European Union), there is growing coverage of the news that Tony Blair is in all liklihood set to become the first EU President within a matter of weeks. This news was first uncovered by Open Europe as we reported on secret meetings hosted by the Swedish EU Presidency.

Most people in Britain and indeed Europe thought they'd seen the back of Blair when he left the House of Commons in 2007, saying, "That's it - it's the end."

But no doubt partly thanks to the invaluable work of his good friend Peter Mandelson in keeping the flagging Labour government alive long enough to get Lisbon enforced, Blair could be flying around the world in Blair Force One before we've started saving up for Christmas.

Assuming that the new EU President will be paid the same as the President of the European Commission, Jose Barroso, this means he or she will receive roughly the same basic salary as Barack Obama - the democratically-elected President of the United States.

Just think about that for a moment. A man voted in after years of high-profile campaigning and public debate and with the support of 69 million people, will be rubbing shoulders on the world stage with a man who just weeks before his election has not had a public word to say about the idea, and who will be nominated by 14 people (a majority of Heads of State, as per the Lisbon Treaty) behind closed doors in a meeting in Brussels, with no public input, not even from national parliaments.

And the people pulling the strings in the corridors of Brussels are amazingly arrogant about it. This week an unnamed senior French diplomat commented that although most people in Europe will be against the idea of Blair for EU President, because of his position on the Iraq war, that makes no difference at all, because "only public opinion is concerned about this, not the 27 Heads of State and Government that will vote him in".

Who, among the 'yes' campaign can honestly say this is not a step backwards for democracy in Europe? Amont many others, Brigid Laffan of the Ireland for Europe campaign has marked her campaign with shrill and hysterical outbursts against British people calling for a 'no' vote. If she is so anti-British, how can she possibly support the idea of Blair as EU President for the next two and a half years? Because that is what Irish people will be voting for today if they approve the Lisbon Treaty.

The same goes for all those Lib Dem delegates at conference a couple of weeks ago, who supported a motion saying Blair must not become EU President. Bit late for that, Lib Dems. It's precisely thanks to your "leader" Nick Clegg that such a position can even be created in the first place, given that he controversially allowed the Lisbon Treaty to sail through Parliament without the referendum he promised in his manifesto. Even if we wanted to, Britain wouldn't actually be able to stop Blair becoming EU President, because he only needs the support of a majority of EU heads of state.

This is probably just the first of many, many concrete and all-too-real examples of why Lisbon is bad news that will, if the Treaty is passed, start to hit us one by one over the coming months and years as we face up to the full implications of what we have done by allowing this to happen.

Don't go Gordon, all is forgiven!

An interesting piece in the Times this morning from William Rees-Mogg reminds us that Justice Secretary Jack Straw is to introduce an amendment which allows life peers to resign from the House of Lords (it was also reported in the FT a few weeks ago). This would allow Lord Mandelson to resign his peerage, stand for the Commons at the next election (Hilary Armstrong's seat in North-West Durham?) and therefore qualify for the Labour leadership should Gordon Brown stand down after the election.

Far fetched? Maybe so, but it's mouth-watering for the Euro-integrationists in Brussels.

He is after all strongly pro-Lisbon and strongly pro-euro - far more so than Brown. Back in December, shortly after Mandy's third-time-lucky-reappearance on the British political scene, EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso let slip that Britain was "closer than ever" to joining the Euro and that the "people who matter in Britain" were thinking about joining the single currency. (Clue: he wasn't talking about those plebs the great British public).

In separate (but worringly related) news, a new YouGov poll for the Sunday Times shows opposition to the idea of President Blair remains strong.

Voters were asked:

"The Government is backing Tony Blair to be president of the European Union. What is your view of this?"

24% agreed with the statement, "I agree with it and I think it will be good for Britain"

54% agreed with the statement, "I don't agree with it - it will mainly be of benefit to Tony Blair."

19% said they didn't know.

The bad news is that, while we might still have a choice over who runs our country (no thanks, Mandy) we haven't got the slightest influence over who will become the first all-powerful EU President if Ireland votes 'yes' and the Lisbon Treaty comes into force.

It won't even matter much if it's Gordon Brown, David Cameron or Peter Mandelson representing us in October's Council (when the nominations are set to be made), since even our own Prime Minister won't have a veto over the preferred candidate (Blair or whoever becomes President will be nominated by a qualified majority vote).

As we've argued before, the only way to stop political has-beens from bagging the most high-profile and best-paid job in Europe is to put a stop to the Lisbon Treaty, so the daft job never sees the light of day in the first place.

Does Ireland want Blair? Does anyone?

How fitting. The unelected, unaccountable Minister for Europe, Lady Glenys Kinnock, has today thrown her weight behind Tony Blair becoming the unelected, unaccountable new EU President.

According to PA, she told the European Parliament in Strasbourg today:

"The UK Government is supporting Tony Blair's candidature for President of the Council (of EU governments)".

Asked if the prospect of being Europe's president had been discussed with Mr Blair, she said: "It is the Government's position. I am sure they would not do that without asking him."

It shows a blatent disregard for the Irish for the Government to be talking about grabbing the cushy new jobs in the Lisbon Treaty, before it has even been ratified. But this is also a reminder to the Irish, as they prepare to vote again, that the creation of a new EU President will substantially diminish the influence of smaller countries in Europe.

Under the existing system, each EU country gets to chair the EU and set the agenda for six months at a time. That is no small matter for a small country whose politicians tend not to secure the higher profile jobs in the other EU institutions.

It means that the democratically elected prime ministers and presidents of each country are able to be EU President on a rotating basis. Nobody is pretending that this system is ideal. But it seems a damn sight fairer and more democratic than simply handing the post, complete with enormous new salary, perks, pension and prestige for two and a half years at a time to an ex-leader who has fallen from grace in his or her own country, as will be case under Lisbon.

Nobody even knows what this uber-President is actually going to do, given the total ambiguity of the Lisbon Treaty. How will his role differ from the super new EU Foreign Minister's?

The Swedish EU Presidency have today had a novel idea. According to PA, the Presidency "has suggested drawing up a proper job description - and then seeing which available political figure best fits the bill."

A job description??! Radical!

This just proves that the idea for a President is mostly about giving the EU a symbolic, political figurehead to help propel its wild dreams about becoming a world superpower. Otherwise why has noone ever bothered with the details?

Tony Blair may well be well respected around the world, and a weighty character for meetings with Putin and Obama. But he is also yesterday's news - he has no democratic mandate at all - and neither will any of the other contenders for the post.

Not only that, but according to a Populus poll for the Times in May, 63% of British voters don't want Blair to be EU President. So Glenys Kinnock is completely out of touch with the British people - quelle surprise.

Bye bye Blair?

We have learnt from the Indy this morning that Tony Blair may not have the job as EU President as sewn up as he would like.

Despite reports last month that David Cameron had said he would "not oppose" Blair becoming the EU's first full-time President if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified this year, it will not all be plain sailing.

Nicolas Sarkozy has thrown his support behind Felipe Gonzalez, the former long-serving (13 years!) Spanish Prime Minister. Gonzalez's spokesman reportedly said that "M.Sarkozy is in favour of Mr Gonzalez's candidature once the Lisbon Treaty is passed."

The article cites Le Monde's former editor Jean-Marie Colombani saying that M. Sarkozy is the key to the power game and political horse-trading over who will eventually seize the job.

We should mention that Gonzalez has reportedly, however, said he does not aspire to the job, so it might still be a clear field for Blair all the way to Brussels...

Don't want Tony? Tough

According to the Evening Standard's 'Commons Whispers' Number 10 has rejected an application for an e-petition which called on Gordon Brown to "undertake to do whatever is necessary to prevent Tony Blair ever becoming President of the EU." The reason given by officials was that the request was "outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government."

Indeed. The Lisbon Treaty, which creates the post of EU President, states that he or she is to be appointed by the European Council acting by qualified majority. So no veto for Gordon over Tony, even if he wanted one.

Blair for president of Europe!

Blair has been endorsed as a future President of Europe by Nicolas Sarkozy, according to the FT. And the non-denial-denials coming out of Downing Street this morning are about as strong as a wilted lettuce-leaf.

Well - he has to pay the bills somehow, and that house in Connaught Square isn't cheap.

No-one has really thought about it yet, but what is the 'package' for the new President going to look like? It would have to be bigger than Barroso's surely - after all we can't have the impression that the civil servants are running the whole show (hint: they are).

Jose's basic is about £180,000 a year, and when he retires he can expect a chunky £120,000 a year pension. So no worries about turning up the gas fire a bit then.

He also gets about £27,000 for accommodation and £7000 for entertaining. There may also be some kind of daily allowance.

Also nice - is the 24-hour chauffeur. You get to pick out a car worth up to £75,000. Barroso, being a red-blooded type, has plumped for an environmentally-devastating VW 4x4 Touareg. Blair would presumably want something a bit greener.

Eventually of course the goal is to have a directly elected US-style president. Indeed, Sarkozy backed a directly elected EU President during the French elections, signing a call for one from the NGO Europanova.

Then there will be the most awesome elections. Imagine the auction of contradictory promises that a European Presidential candidate will need to make to win: a promise of sausages for all in Poland, and compulsory vegetarianism in Holland. A super-sensible calvinist clampdown on drinking in Sweden, and a pledge to introduce a two-drink minimum for driving on the roads of southern Italy.

Only one man can make these kind of paradoxical pledges. We'll certainly be backing Blair against Chirac in 2012.