Change EU can believe in?
The final stage of the Lisbon Treaty will be concluded at dinner this evening, as the 27 EU Heads of Government will attempt to divvy up the three newly created figurehead positions of the union.
Being vague in their terms of reference, the positions of President of the Council, Chief Executive of the European Council, and High Representative for Foreign Affairs will ultimately be moulded by their first holders, and so it is vital that the right people get the jobs.
Regretfully it seems the leaders have changed the question they were supposed to answer, and so the toil and political capital expended in birthing the Lisbon Treaty looks like it will have been in vain.
The whole point of the Lisbon process was to streamline the EU and, most importantly, to give it a ‘face’ that would be recognisable across the world and would not change every six months. The President in particular would be able to look the leaders of China, India, the USA and Russia in the eye and speak with the authority of the most important market in the world, on human rights, on climate change, on the important issues that will face our societies. The EU would finally be able to punch its weight.
Instead, it is now expected that tonight the 27 will torpedo their own collective global influence and select Herman Von Rompuy (Rumpy-Pumpy to the sketchwriters) of Belgium as the first President.
As a testament to mediocrity, Von Rompuy is a class act. With no record to criticise, he will be the winner of the ultimate race to the bottom – the lowest common denominator candidate. Instead of a President with the stature that couldn’t be ignored, the position of President will be effectively neutered at birth.
For anyone who cares about the position of the UK and the EU in the world, it will be a travesty if the 27 choose this path. The EU needs to select a strong figure as President if it is not to slip into potentially terminal and irreversible decline.
/>


I’ve just read the chapter in Fast Forward relating to financial regulation. Keen to understand why the YFs would support “a rejection of European level macro-prudential supervisory body” and why “it is unnecessary and would be an added complication”….Not seeing this myself….