If you force 26 EU countries to choose between Berlin and London. 26 will choose Berlin.

The knife in the battle over the next Commission President has just been twisted a little deeper into David Cameron's side.

Both Swedish PM Fredrik Reinfeldt and Dutch PM Mark Rutte today announced that they will not seek to block Jean-Claude Juncker for the top post.

Both countries have huge reservations, (Sweden and Hungary were the only two countries to oppose the idea of Spitzenkandidaten from the get-go), but they apparently don't want to be standing on the wrong side of the fence from Germany.

Speaking in the Dutch Parliament today, Rutte said:

I’m set on [Juncker. He is] in a position to implement important Dutch wishes.

A slight departure, then, from remarks Rutte made previously, that the Spitzenkandidaten process is “not my preference,” and that he wants to initiate a fundamental debate on it “possibly during the Dutch presidency” over the European Council in 2016.

Importantly, Rutte also remarked:

Under no circumstances, will I make agreements over adapting the fiscal rules, or making them more flexible, in order to make the nomination of a candidate possible.

Meanwhile, Reinfeldt told the Swedish Parliament:

If Jean Claude Juncker musters a qualified majority amongst heads of state and governments, and also has the support of the European Parliament, well then, the rules set out in the Lisbon Treaty have been followed and Sweden will also join this majority. 

Though Reinfeldt doesn't actually state how he would act in an outright vote, it probably means he will not vote against Juncker. 

So that only leaves the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, on 'Team Cameron'. Orban said "there is no way" he would vote for Juncker, even before the European Parliamentary election.

Absent changes, Cameron is now a long way off a blocking minority to Juncker in the Council. With Italy trading support for Juncker in exchange for more "flexible" EU fiscal policy, and the Netherlands and Sweden dropping out too, Cameron will lose the vote on Friday. This is the grim reality, even though most EU heads of state are far from convinced about Juncker, and of the Spitzekandidaten process itself.

The top line is that if you pit London against Berlin, and ask other EU member states to choose between them, they won't choose London.

So the trick is to avoid that choice - which in this case was rather difficult. For reasons we've explained numerous times, the likely consequence of repeatedly forcing this choice is that the UK will leave the EU. That most certainly isn't in Berlin's interest either - or Stockholm's, or the Hague's, or Copenhagen's, or Warsaw's...

From democratic revolution to "back-room massacre": Is Germany's press already suffering from a Juncker hangover?

Many of us have been there. Waking up on a Sunday morning. Head sore. Mouth dry. And not entirely pleased with our behaviour the previous night. "What was I thinking" type of thing.

It seems like German media is there too over the, by now, highly-likely appointment of Juncker as a the next European Commission President. As we've argued before, no one particularly wants Juncker, but due a series of coinciding factors in the randomness that is EU bargaining, here he is. A significant chunk of the German commentariat - for reasons relating to the German conflicted political consciousness - have been the most vocal supporters of Juncker via the Spitzenkandidaten process. Cameron has been pitted against Germany.

Except that a whole host of Germans were uncomfortable with the Spitzenkandidaten all along. As the moment of truth draws closer, influential German commentators are waking up to smell the coffee (to continue the hangover analogy).

And they're going hard.

Today Handelsblatt's leader, by its international correspondent Torsten Reicke argues, "Juncker's victory is a defeat," and that the tussle over the EU top jobs is "grotesque." He writes: 

Hardly anyone considers Juncker to be the right candidate for the right time. The opposite is true. The almost 60-yr old eurocrat is symbolic of a Europe of elites, which the citizens turned their back on in the [European Parliament] elections in May. 

Both in terms of substance and style, Juncker's European politics represent "more of the same," and [they] subscribe "more Europe" to deal with every problem...[But citizens] definitely do not want "more of the same. Whoever wants the new Commission to change course, ensuring a better balance in the tug-of-war between the national parliaments and Brussels cannot be satisfied with [Juncker's election].

Reicke also points out that Germany will lose a vital economically-liberal ally if there is Brexit. This fear has been heightened as Italy and France have been trading support for Juncker in exchange for a loosening of the EU's fiscal rules. As Reicke writes:

Juncker's appointment takes the UK one step closer to Brexit. This would be a disaster for Britain, but also for Europe. Without Britain we will not be able to maintain a liberal economic outlook, but more importantly, [we’ll also lose] political clout on the world stage.

By allowing Juncker to win the job, Reicke continues, that a dangerous precedent is being set: formalising a power-grab by the European Parliament at the expense of the European Council. Reicke concludes that Merkel "will be responsible if Europe allienates itself further from citizens with the election of Juncker."

Similarly, Süddeutsche’s Foreign Affairs editor Stefan Kornelius points out that:

This is what a perfect political trap [by the European socialists] looks like. Nobody should blame the British David Cameron for the conflict: those raging in anger are, of course, not loved. But at least he speaks frankly from his heart. What started as a democratic exercise four weeks ago now ends in a real backroom massacre. This can only further damage the European institutions and the people working for them.

He continues:

The honest answer is: these elections have only produced losers so far. So it doesn't appear to bother the Socialists to wade-in even deeper. The Conservatives are stuck with an unloved Spitzenkandidat for who's election they will still have to pay a price.

Meanwhile, Die Welt’s Henryk Broder writes that  he "wants his vote back," arguing that current haggling over the EU top jobs shows that the EP elections were: "Not about peace, democracy and jobs -- they were about the spoils of power." He continues:

What were the European elections about? If you believed the slogans of the parties, they were about a Europe of opportunity - not unemployment; a Europe for citizens, not for money; a Europe of democracy -not paternalism. And naturally for the "European Peace Project"... But in reality, they were about something completely banal: posts and power-plays, to forward the career of two eurocrats, who are partly responsible for the situation in which Europe finds itself, and therefore, especially qualified to continue with this tone and direction.

It's completely irrelevant whether Schulz becomes the President of the Parliament, or Juncker becomes the President of the Commission, or vice versa. Or even if they both take over the management of the Brussels brassiere - Schulz on even and Juncker on uneven days. The "elections" were a hoax, the ensuing-struggle is the same. That is why I want my vote back.

Even Bild, who were campaigning to instill Juncker, seemed to semi-endorse Danish PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt last Friday, with the headline: "Why isn't this fantastic Dane becoming the Head of the EU?" and continuing that her appointment "would end the tussle over Juncker."

Sore head indeed.

Anti-euro Alternative für Deutschland now likely to join Tories' European Parliament group - what will it mean for Anglo-German relations?

Relations between Berlin and London are potentially about to become a lot more complicated.

The Tories raised some eyebrows last week when they allowed the Finns Party and Danish People’s Party – two parties with controversial histories, but who, according to Tory MEPs, have cleaned up their act – to join their European Conservatives and Reformers (ECR) group in the European Parliament.

Even more eyebrows could be raised soon as it now looks highly possible that Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) will also join the ECR.

A vote amongst ECR MEPs is imminent. Number 10 isn't keen at all on the idea, but doesn't actually have a veto over who joins. That’s entirely down to a vote amongst the actual MEPs in the group, with a simple majority needed to approve new applicants.

Number 10 will probably try to make Tory MEPs vote against AfD, but the Tories account for only 19 of 55 ECR MEPs. Most non-UK MEPs will likely vote in favour of allowing AfD to join. This means Number 10 is effectively powerless, short of removing the whip from Tory MEPs or withdrawing from the ECR altogether. Cameron could try to hit the phones to the national leaders of the other parties to try to get them to convince their MEPs to vote against AfD. If successful, he could maybe still block AfD joining.

If AfD joins, it will be explosive. The party would bring seven MEPs to the ECR group, allowing it to potentially overtake the liberals, ALDE, as the third-largest group in the European Parliament (unless ALDE also gets some new recruits). An enlarged ECR would attract additional cash and staff, as well as more important committee posts. Also, the group may well become a more influential voice by virtue of being bigger, and therefore much harder to ignore. It can serve to put significant pressure on the European People's Party (EPP) in particular. You can’t blame Tory MEPs for seeking to maximise their influence.

Also, the ECR strategy appears to involve a concerted effort to strip UKIP's EFD group of its member parties, leading to the its collapse, depriving them of cash and demolishing their platform. Denying them the DPP, the Finns and AfD as members (assuming AfD would even want to join Farage) is a key part of the strategy – which seems to be working so far.

However, with AfD, as with the DPP and the Finns, there’s a big trade-off here: numbers versus image. With the Nordic parties, it was the risk of turning off allies on the liberal right, who are vital to achieving EU reform.

With AfD, it’s all about Angela Merkel. She doesn't deal with AfD. In fact, she barely acknowledges its existence. She once said,

"We consider a collaboration [with AfD] to be out of the question."

Merkel wasn’t happy when Cameron left the EPP-ED group to form the ECR in 2009. Now, joining forces with her arch-enemy will be like chucking a tank of fuel onto the fire. It will also surprise Berlin, since Number 10 has previously ruled out this possibility. In fact, only in February he said:

"In terms of the parties that are going to join that, we have a sister party in Germany, the CDU/CSU. We’re not looking for a new sister party. So I don’t anticipate that situation arising at all."

With AfD, the Independent Greeks (interesting to see whether the two of them will get along) and 'Germany-wary' Law & Justice, the new-look ECR could perceived by some in Berlin as outright anti-Merkel. It's hard to see how this will help Cameron's 'stop Juncker' campaign.

But is it a deal-breaker for a wider Anglo-German bargain on EU reform? Well, to some to some extent the European Parliament follows its own logic. And by having Tory MEPs vote against AfD joining, Cameron will seek to convey a “I did what I could” approach. Indeed, if the plan is for the ECR to become a vehicle for pushing a reformist agenda, there was always going to be a time when the group was no longer going to be “owned” by David Cameron.

Here's a second big potential risk though: yes, these parties share a basic scepticism of current EU. However, parties like the Danish People's Party, Finns Party, Law & Justice are, at best, lukewarm on issues like free trade, reflecting their social democratic core for the first two, and the small 'c' conservative base of the last one. Even AfD has come out against the EU-US trade deal - TTIP - as currently proposed. Remember, TTIP is one of the key items in Cameron's reform package. So, much like the AfD itself, there will be a massive struggle within the ECR over whether it wants to be a solid force for EU reform and free trade or a catch-all sceptical block with a penchant for populism, protectionism and illiberal economics.

You can say that Cameron has no control over his party, or you can say this is an example of a type of devolved democracy (if you’re a federalist, ‘European’ democracy over national politics: this is the system you want) but only time will tell whether this trade-off will be worth it for the wider goal of sweeping reform in Europe.

Merkel and Cameron won't run out of conversation topics any time soon...