Imagine drafting a controversial proposal. Among its key recommendations is a new job. With a mixture of persuasion and muscle the proposal is accepted. The job has an attractive title but it turns out there is little agreement over its precise role. So only after the signature pens have been put to paper do the real discussions begin as to how the job will be defined. This is the curious case of the president of the European Council. As European leaders expect the last country, the Czech Republic, to sign the Lisbon Treaty, attention turns to not just who will fill the post of president but what this person will actually do. The job spec, as laid out in the treaty, is spare on detail. The president of the council shall "chair it and drive forward its work". He/she "shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the EC".
This is the curious case of the president of the European Council.
As European leaders expect the last country, the Czech Republic, to sign the Lisbon Treaty, attention turns to not just who will fill the post of president but what this person will actually do. The job spec, as laid out in the treaty, is spare on detail. The president of the council shall "chair it and drive forward its work". He/she "shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the EC".
The French president is honest, suggesting that no one has decided what job it should be: "Should there be a strong and charismatic President or one who searches for consensus and organises the agenda?"
The French president is NOT honest, he is spinning. What could the obligatory "chair it and drive forward its work" possibly entail if not what Sarko pretends to be one of two opposed options?...
And Gavin Hewitt doesit himself.
"The president of the EC shall... ensure the external representation of the union on issues concerning its common and security policy." That last sentence has been taken to define the post.
"The president of the EC shall... ensure the external representation of the union on issues concerning its common and security policy."
That last sentence has been taken to define the post.
Taken by whom? Taken by Big Presidency proponents. And he continues:
The president will be the face of the European Union.
Except you placed an end point where there was none, amd 'forgot' to quote what follows...
policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
If the article wouldn't pain itself to be neutral on Blair, I would say, blatant. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
