The main difference between the EU project today is that of its democratic claims to legitimacy, as opposed to religious/aristocratic claims -- that sovereignty, in political discourse, is now generally agreed to rest with the governed instead of with the Church. In earlier attempts at pan-European governance, sovereignty was determined at the time to be a kind of relationship with God, for which the Church was the agreed-upon institution that could determine God's opinion on the matter.
However, it was Machiavelli who challenged that model directly. (He did not advocate "power over" or absolutism in any sense.) What he proposed is that just being named a prince because of the institutional decisions by the Church or other authority did not guarantee one's capacity to rule or remain in office -- that sovereignty is always a contested space which must be defended vigorously in every moment. That is why he is considered the founder of political science -- after his work, power was could no longer be considered to be a gift from God or fate, so sovereignty must rest, ultimately, in something more foundational than a mere institutional arrangement, which gave rise to the enlightenment idea that sovereignty ultimately rests with the governed and not the other way around.
Which one? The EU has Presidents of all three of its main institutions: President of the European Parliament (elected by parliamentary majority; currently Jerzy Buzek), the President of the European Commission (formally proposed by the Council and approved by Parliament; currently, José Manuel Barroso, who stands for a second term), and the President of the Council of the European Union (post rotating every six months, currently Sweden, resp. the corresponding minister or PM of the government of Sweden, whicheer form the Council convenes in). Once Lisbon is in effect, we would get the European Council officialised as fourth institution, adding a fourth, a permanent President of the European Council. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The provision of a permanent President of the European Council provides for a centralized political authority that, to me, may be disconcertingly powerful relative to other bodies. But if centralization of power is what one wants in order to strengthen the EU as a unified polity, than the person that holds that office should be judged on both his general ideological outlook (and for all his faults, Blair is a liberal, not a neo-con, after all) and personal leadership qualities as well as her or his capacity to effectively negotiate outcomes among institutional elites that are pretty well insulated from the effects of public opinion. I'd like to see criticisms of Blair that address those qualities and not merely the fact that he favored invading Iraq or appears to play the high-stakes game of bureaucratic poker too well, attracting the meaningless label of "hypocrite."
Well, not all of them. Only the President of the EP. However, he can do so only under exceptional circumstances; but normally, convening is automatic. (See rules -- the Conference of Presidents mentioned therein is a body also including the faction leaders.) The job of the President of the EP (and his/her deputies) is mostly, just like for the Speaker in British and US parliaments, to conduct the sessions.
The provision of a permanent President of the European Council provides for a centralized political authority that, to me, may be disconcertingly powerful relative to other bodies.
Well, that's what Bliar would no doubt like it to become. But, at present, it is set out to be a rather weak institution: merely a chairman. He can't order around the heads of elected governments, nor does he control the money. It is a rough parallel to your Senate President, not to your THE President. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Do you favor a strong President model or a weak one? If you think Blair will be both strong and effective, and you really want a weak presidency, then I find that a compelling reason to oppose him. However, I think the winds on this are actually blowing the other way in Brussels. What was the problem with the rotating presidency after all, if you just wanted something like the US presidency of the Senate? I suspect that there is a dominant constituency of institutional elites who want a strong, powerful presidency and believe that it will help lead to a stronger and more powerful central European authority in Brussels, and that is precisely why someone like Blair, who has been successful in the face of significant adversity (and for good reason), is being considered as a candidate. Rather than call him a liar and a warmonger, which are terms that likely have little negative connotations for institutional elites, it might be better to simply oppose the strong presidency and those candidates that are likely to want to make it stronger.
Blair wouldn't try to be strong and effective. He'd try to be strong, he'd be a disaster, and he'd totally discredit the institution. But just his mere appointment would be a PR mistake for the EU as a whole.
Just look at what he's done as Quartet Envoy to the Middle East. The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
Blair wouldn't try to be strong and effective
Finally? I think in one for or another, all of my arguments were told by me and others in this thread.
Do you favor a strong President model or a weak one?
For that specific post or the EU as a whole?
in Brussels
The Lisbon Treaty as is represents a compromise between the various players (e.g. the EU's main institutions). Behind that, winds blew in different directions in different quarters of Brussels.
What was the problem with the rotating presidency after all
Too messy. The holders of the office have to govern at home at the time, every six months there is a handover, and when there is a government crisis at home, the EU takes a second seat (see Czech Presidency earlier this year). I note that the rotating Presidency would stay on in the Council of the European Union (the day-to-day intergovernmental institution of the EU). I should also note that in discussions on ET, it transspired to us that the Lisbon treaty definitely solidifies the European Council as an institution of its own separate from the Council, which was seen negatively by most.
dominant constituency of institutional elites who want a strong, powerful presidency
Who would they be? Surely not the Commission and the bureaucracy under it; the Commission wants power for itself (even if Barroso is quite inefficient in seeking it). Surely not Parliament, which was against it and wants more influence for itself. As for the European Council, its members want power to themselves, but that quite obviously doesn't translate into wanting a strong power over their heads. Quite the opposite: they want someone representative to stand in the spotlight, who puts them in a better light -- more a figurehead than power position. (In Eurobarometer polls, the Council was persistently the leat popular EU institution with citizens; with the Parliament scoring highest.) For that reason, Tony would again be a bad choice; and I suspect that's why today the only voices for Tony for President come from Britain.
successful in the face of significant adversity
I am not aware of any real successes achieved by Tony. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
In fact, I should point out, also within the institutions. In the Council, back then, it was just Tony who advocated a strong President, but with enough opposition for the end result to be severely de-fanged, fortunately. It was reported back then that Tony, who everyone knew wanted the post for himself, no longer wanted such a job -- however, recently he is said to have changed his mind, bored of his Middle East envoy job. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I would like to give an appleuse not only to DoDo, but also santiago for the consistant playing of the role as Devil's advocate (intended or unintended) which spurred DoDo to produce such a distinct list. 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!
attracting the meaningless label of "hypocrite."
boy, you won't quit, will you?
it's quite insidious, how you sneak in your 'values' within your comment.
just because Fran put a smiley after her comment, doesn't mean she was speaking in a flippant manner.
imo, it's you who are flippant, calling hypocrisy a 'meaningless label'.
because if that's how you really think, that's sad.
cue your reply that's not how you really think.
if you are so cynical as to believe conscience is a delusion, and politicians should lie like rugs, then why don't you just say so? it's certainly appears to be what you're inferring, between the lines... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I do NOT think politicians should lie, just like I don't think spouses should cheat, but I do think that you will find it difficult to come up with the names of very many statesmen or stateswomen at the international level who have been very successful and who haven't committed their share of dissimulation. Can you? (I can think of a few possible candidates off hand -- Dag Hammarskjöld and the Catholic Popes since John XXIII -- but their exception appears to prove the rule by their extra-ordinariness, doesn't it? And their success seems somewhat limited compared to other good statesmen who haven't been so pure.) Maybe some sins are more forgivable than others, so perhaps we can expand our criteria beyond obvious and useless cliches.
