Top Diaries

Ok, but this is an entirely different and opposing point to Jerome's

Yes, and I am an entirely different blogger to Jerome, often taking opposing points of view on EU issues.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 04:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And I would never confuse the two of you - the only point I am making is that I am taking shots from different directions and you posted your comment in a thread which he initiated with a particular line of argument which was other than that implicit in your point

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 04:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I replied to the content of your comment. The content of the top-level comment in the trhead is irrelevant. The fact that your position is assailable from more than one direction is also not a refutation of my comment.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 04:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yep - and I was only pointing out that you were making a different point to that which I was responding to in my reply to Jerome. All arguments are assailable from different directions, and I try to engage with each on their merits

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 05:04:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a brave diary (4.00 / 3)

If a debate has three sides, I think lack of confrontation on one of the three fronts might be a legit point.

(On the other hand, in this case, I don't think you and Jérôme really disagreed: efficiency in getting others to agree does not equal power.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 06:18:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a brave diary (4.00 / 5)

Ok, but this is an entirely different and opposing point to Jerome's - who was worried he might succeed in enhancing the Council's effectiveness relative to the Commission or Parliament.

I think appointing Blair would:

Do nothing for the Council's effectiveness in decision-making.
Shift more power to the Council, by way of media portraying it as more important when led by famous president Blair.
Shift the Overton window by rewarding a war-criminal and placing him in a central position of power.

I find number 3 the worst.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 09:00:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think this is a very succinct summary of the case against and I find it very persuasive. On balance, even if Blair did improve the effectiveness of the Council (possible) or increase the power of the Council and of the EU overall (quite likely), would it be worth the moral and political cost of seeming to endorse the manner in which the Iraq war was conceived and executed? Perhaps we have to draw one of Blair's own famous red lines here to show that that is simply not what the EU is about.

I wrote this Diary because I felt there was a case to be made that a Blair Presidency might not be quite as disastrous as many here failed, chiefly because of Blair's contribution to the Peace Process and an awareness of how people do one job is not always a good predictor of how they will do another.

But being a political leader is more than being good at the nuts and bolts of the job (arguable in this case). It is also to provide moral leadership and to provide a figurehead with which people can identify and trust in the conduct of their affairs in Europe and beyond.

Clearly Blair has forfeited that trust, and,(to a lesser extent) the UK, by remaining outside the Bill of Rights, the Euro and Schengen, has demonstrated a less than full commitment to what the EU is all about - as determined by the vast majority of its people.

Politics is also about engaging with people and inspiring them to move forward collectively towards a greater vision. I do not care greatly for a vision which requires the conquest of other countries on patently false premises.

You win, I'll sign the Petition.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 04:15:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair point (4.00 / 5)

about working within the institution we have, not those we'd like.

But I'd argue that this is precisely the point: as we have a new 'institution' (that president of the EC), its exact role is not quite defined yet, and will to some extent be so by its first titular.

In that context, Blair would probably set a number of dangerous precedents, by pulling all the attention to him, and to the Council: it would reinforce the impression that the EU is about the Council more than the Commission (which is democratic: it is chosen by the Council AND voted in by the European Parliament, a double legitimacy), and it would likely be even more about the personality clashes (and the national chest thumping that tags along) ratherthan about pan-European policies.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 03:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not really all that new (none / 0)

It's not really all that new - except that the office holder holds it for 2.5 years and not 6 months (or 18 months as part of the troika), and can't combine it with being a leader/foreign minister of a national Government as well. You could argue it will be more of a "functionary" job under the Treaty than it is now.

We are also assuming that Blair will bring the attitudes, behaviours and policies he pursued in Downing Street into his new role. Any competent politician/manager adopts a style and program appropriate to his new role which in this case is completely different.

Again the Irish experience of Blair is completely different. He engaged with the Irish issue more than any other British Prime Minister and did more than anyone who resolve historic antagonisms because he treated us as an equal - not as a colonial overlord or a condescending git - regrettably our "DEFAULT" experience of British PMs.

He didn't have to devote all that time to tedious negotiations on the N.I. issue - he could have delegated, and there wasn't much political capital in it for him in Britain at the time. Ironically it is now recognised as probably his one major achievement.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 04:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I thought success on the Northern Ireland question is owed as much to Mo Mowlam as it is to Blair.

To me, Blair's greatest legacy is the Human Rights Act 1998. In terms of self-government the Stormont agreement is a joke compared with the Basque autonomous statute of 1979, and Blair eventually was forced to suspend the NI Assembly.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 04:33:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not really all that new (none / 0)

Mo Mowlam was very popular with Nationalists (and people who admired her personal qualities) but she was disliked and distrusted by Unionist/Loyalists and could therefore not have brokered an agreement. She was important in assuaging the historic sense of grievance amongst the Nationalist Community, and in that sense made a vital contribution, but if anything forced loyalists to retreat further into their bunker.

After a lot of hiccups the NI assembly is functioning quite well but there is still a lot of work to be done. However the war is over - which cannot be said for the Basque conflict.

I agree that the HR act was a great achievement, and from a British perspective perhaps as important. It has always puzzled me why Blair braved a lot of opposition to that Act, and yet derogated from the Charter of Fundamental rights. Perhaps you can explain...

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 04:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Frank Schnittger:

I agree that the HR act was a great achievement, and from a British perspective perhaps as important. It has always puzzled me why Blair braved a lot of opposition to that Act, and yet derogated from the Charter of Fundamental rights. Perhaps you can explain...

Oh, that one's easy: 9/11 changed everything, and since I came to the UK in 2005 it's clear that both the Labour Front Bench and the Tories would like to see the HRA1998 repealed. Eurosceptics wrongly blame the EU for it (the European Convention of Human Rights which the HRA1998 incorporates is the key treaty of the Council of Europe and I used to joke that the UK would find itself in the dubious company of Belarus if they decided to drop it).

So, given that Blair was a coward on the Euro, on Schengen, and on Police and Judicial cooperation, it's not surprising that he would also be a coward on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In fact, the only issue where he stuck to his guns was Iraq, and on all these issues he did what the Murdoch press wanted. He's clearly not a man of character

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 04:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Migeru:

I used to joke that the UK would find itself in the dubious company of Belarus if they decided to drop it

Have you dropped the joke because it isn't funny anymore because the UK IS now in some rather dubious company and doesn't seem too ashamed about it?

I have to say I have little time for a political position/culture which freely signs up to a Treaty and then does nothing but gripe about the fact that the Treaty is actually being implemented in line with its letter and intent.

If Brits want to blame someone, they should blame the Government which signed the Treaty, not the organisation which promotes it - which as you say, is in this case not the EU in any case. Edwards used to joke that he represented the "grown-up wing of the Dem party". I wish some people would grow up and and take ownership/responsibility for what they signed up to.

I don't know if British Eurosceptics realise how little time everyone else has for them and how much they are simply holding Britain back gaining all the positives that are available from the Treaties they have signed up to..

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 05:17:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I don't use the joke any more mostly because the political "debate" has since moved on from bashing the European Union on the misdirected excuse of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On your other points about Britain's euroscepticism, no challenge from me.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 05:01:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Reform Treaty is a constraint, but just on the Council Presidency, it is also unclear (how much power is shared with the High Representative?) and underdefined (how is he nominated, what exactly can he do in the framework of 'driving forward' the Council's work). Institutions don't grow out of codified rules only, but practice too, and this seems a strong factor for the EU Council Presidency.

Bliar already signalled that he'd like to get "real power" over defense and trade, competencies of the Commission, if he is to be Council President. Thus his candidacy would enhance the Council's power (as opposed to 'efficiency') at the expense of the other two institutions in a very direct way, not just via the media as Jérôme wrote.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 06:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Defence is not a Commission competence, it's a High Representative competence and the High Representative (just like the Commission President) will attend Council meetings. The HR is also nominated by the Commission and Council jointly.

Trade is a Commission competence.

The problem with Blair's "real power" demands is that they hint that Blair's mental model of the Council under his presidency is like his cabinet, where he was be the Prime Minister and the minister were all yes-men. That's not at all the situation in the Council, and it is not even like that with the Commission's president vis-a-vis the rest of the Commissioners.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 06:36:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Under Lisbon, the High Representative will also become a member of the Commission. But I submit that the ESDP itself is Council competency.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 06:53:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, currently it's "second pillar".

One point that I didn't make in my The Bigger Picture diary is that I don't think the Member States will again make the "mistake" of creating an agency like the European Commission directly in charge of entire policy areas. Any additional powers that the EU gets will be Council competences.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 06:57:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't follow Blair's logic here - unless he setting up an excuse for when he doesn't get/take the job - defense and Trade are quite clearly High Rep and Commission competencies as codified in the Reform Treaty. It would be illegal/unconstitutional to give him what he says he wants - it would be open to challenge in the Euro Court. If he want the President of the Council to be a much more powerful role, he should have negotiated that as part of the Treaty negotiations - something his "Euroscepticism" probably prevented him from doing. He is hoisted on his own petard and it is entirely disingenuous for him to complain now that the post doesn't have "real power". That is what "Britain" under him wanted.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 06:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If he want the President of the Council to be a much more powerful role, he should have negotiated that as part of the Treaty negotiations

But He did just that. I think you have it completely backwards: as I remember it, the permanent Council Presidency was his idea. The Independent remembers that way, too:

The new EU president is due to start work next January but the date could be put back by delays in ratifying the new treaty in some member states. Mr Blair was one of the main architects of the new post. He argued that a permanent leader for the body on which EU prime ministers and presidents sit would be more effective than the current system, under which the chairmanship rotates among EU countries every six months.

Lemme scrap together some old sources.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 12:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Blair and the Full-time Presidency (none / 1)

The idea of a permanent EU Council President has been first argued in public by then French President Chirac. However, the British government is said to be its real origin, and was first to publicly agree, with Jack Straw laying it out in The Economist. BBC NEWS | Politics | Straw calls for president of Europe:

The new role would put an end to the rotation of "musical chairs" where each EU member state takes its turn at the presidency every six months.
Conservative shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram suggested Mr Straw was lining up a future position for Prime Minister Tony Blair as "president of the united states of Europe".

This was back in 2002! Now, what is this idea really about? Certainly not more democracy. Nor more federalism, for that would demand the strengthening of the Commission and the Parliament, not the Council. But this could be about strengthening the leading role of the large member states. (Remember that this was once an explicit idea of Bliar, when he proposed an "EU Directorium" made up of the biggest kids on the block.) Unfortunately, that's exactly how the fighting lines were drawn, and the biggies won. Convention backs Blair's plan for EU presidency - Times Online:

TONY BLAIR's plans for a powerful new full-time president of Europe look set to become reality after the man charged with drafting a European Union constitution backed the project yesterday.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former French President who chairs the convention on Europe's future, supported the EU's biggest member states who argue that the Union needs a president if it is to punch its weight on the international stage.
However, well-organised opposition from the EU's small states, which have joined forces with the ten new entrants from Central and Eastern Europe, means that weeks of horsetrading lie ahead.
...[Giscard] also noted that two smaller states, Denmark and Sweden, had just swung behind the idea, which originated in London but was first publicly proposed by President Chirac of France.

The really sad part for me in this was that Chirac got the Schröder government on-board. Opinion Editorial No.11:

Especially the traditional coalition partners of Germany in former IGCs [Inter-Governmental Councils], the Benelux-Countries (and Italy, too), felt estranged by a German behavior of neglect towards them. It was Germany who tilted the balance in the Convention in favor of the "ABC-camp" (Aznar, Blair and Chirac) favoring a full time president of the European Council. This idea was declared "unacceptable" by the Benelux-countries fearing an intergovernmental drift of the EU-system and a domination of the big member states. The German government sided with the big and powerful member states of the EU on this most disputed issue of the Convention.

I note that with Bliar's intentions to be the first holder of this position he himself pushed having been reported six years ago, it was highly disingenous of his circle to spread spin about 'considering' this 'recent proposal'.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 01:09:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blair and the Full-time Presidency (none / 0)

I bow to your greater knowledge of the origins of the post. The final job spec for the post clearly is a compromise between those who want a high profile position - the larger powers who would also control the appointment process - and the smaller members who would be loath to lose their turn at the current rotating Presidency. Ireland is certainly very proud of how its managed its last two Presidencies - which resulted in agreement to the EU Constitution and the appointment of Barrosso etc.

Given that smaller countries got a good deal on the Commission - Malta has the same rights to appoint a Commissioner as Germany - agreement to giving up their turn at the rotating Presidency was probably the quid pro quo.

The final choice of President, and the degree of power/influence accorded to him/her may also be subject to similar bargaining. In terms of potential support amongst council members, its hard to look beyond Blair, Fischer, Ahern unless someone like Prodi becomes available. I'm sure the Eastern European countries will want to have their say, and they may actually like Blair's atlanticism because of fears of a Russian resurgence. They may want someone like Blair to assure their security through strong ties with the US.

If Obama becomes President, anti US sentiment elsewhere will also decline, although I'm not sure whether this will meake Blair look lik a dinosaur of the Bush age, or more acceptable to e.g. the German Government who opposed Iraq.

We must remember that Iraq was much less of a negative issue for the European political elite than it was for the citizenry as a whole. They will probably see Iraq as "water under the bridge" by the time the final decision is made. If a smaller southern state like Portugal continues to hold the Commission Presidency, then a larger northern State like the UK might get the Council Presidency - with the Eastern states having to wait for their turn. France already holds the Central Bank Presidency. Will Merkel really fight for Fischer?

It may come down to a choice between Ahern and Blair - and the very contrasting views of the profile of the post which either appointment would embody.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Feb 15th, 2008 at 07:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The really important bits of the member nation states have yet to be pooled - fiscal policy, taxation, defense, nuclear deterrents etc. and thus much real power is still vested in member Governments as represented by the council. And at least the Council does have (albeit indirect) democratic legitimacy in that all its mebers are democratically elected.
The EU Commission, by way of contrast, is like a large civil service with almost no democratic legitimacy in its own right - except those competencies which have been delegated to it by member Governments and those decisions made by the Council for it to implement.

I disagree with this assessment. The Council is responsible to no-one. European issues are not among the top priorities for national elections (nor will they be until and unless the Union becomes a more coherent, powerful entity, which it won't be until people trust it, which they won't do until it's become more transparent, which it won't become until people take an active interest in it - i.e. make it an issue in national elections). So the heads of government that make up the Council can screw us over in a number of creative and painful ways that do not (quite) create the the level of public ire that is required to oust a national government.

The Commission, by way of contrast, is somewhat responsible to Parliament, because Parliament has to approve a Commission. Used judiciously, the Parliament should be able to leverage this right to consent to even greater oversight powers over the Commission. But it has no such tool w.r.t. the Council.

As an aside, I think we should aim for making the Commission completely subordinate to Parliament, as is the government in a parliamentary system.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 at 12:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How political debates/election are handled within individual member states is a matter for citizens within those polities - and at this stage I doubt that many are under any illusion that a key role for the PM and government ministers is how they represent their country on the Council. In Ireland and smaller members it is now probably recognised as their KEY role, and certainly a factor in national elections.

We also mustn't lose sight of the fact that the Commission and Parliament can only act within their competencies. Any issue - even Iraq or tax harmonisation - can be brought up at Council level and decisions can be made provide they are supported by the council by a weighted majority - except those few remaining areas which still require unanimity under the Reform Treaty.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 06:32:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How political debates/election are handled within individual member states is a matter for citizens within those polities

From a purely formal point of view, that's certainly correct. But it's a very, very formal argument that I doubt has much traction. If the facts on the ground are that the majority of the people who are sitting on the Council are subjected to insufficient oversight, then the fact that this lack of oversight is due to a weakness in the national systems does not reduce its negative impact on the trustworthiness of the Council.

- and at this stage I doubt that many are under any illusion that a key role for the PM and government ministers is how they represent their country on the Council.

Colour me sceptical. Taxation policy, education policy, social policies. Those are all more important than what the Union does. Or at least more immediately important. And those are all exclusively national competences.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 at 09:21:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]