An intriguing question, and one which is certain to arise sooner rather than later if Ireland votes Yes and the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, is who is to become the new President of Europe. The job description in the Lisbon Treaty suggests the main job will be chairing meetings of the European Council, the regular meetings of heads of state or government. But the reality is that he or she will be the person who will answer the Kissinger question posed 30 years ago by the US Secretary of State: "Who do I call when I want to call Europe?"The one candidate who might be thought to have the hedgehog quality is Tony Blair. He knows one big thing at a time: Northern Ireland and Iraq being the obvious examples of the good and the bad hedgehog at work. Blair certainly has the ability to face down other European leaders. But would it not seem odd for Europe to choose as its interface with the outside world someone who for 10 years failed to persuade Gordon Brown of the merits of joining the euro (despite his own personal conviction that it would be the right policy) and divided Europe disastrously ("old and new Europe" in Donald Rumsfeld's dismissive phrase) over the invasion of Iraq? The German chancellor and the French president appear to be prepared to forgive and forget the Iraq imbroglio. But the Conservatives, having originally appeared unfazed about a Blair appointment, have now attacked it in vigorous terms. Insufficiently European for some on the Left in Europe, he would for the Right, particularly in Britain, have the opposite fault. For an Irish voter, not that any will be allowed to vote in this ultimately undemocratic presidential election, a further consideration might be the fact that the drafters of the treaty, (and I spoke to the man who drafted this section of it last week,) envisage that the president of the council's job should ultimately be merged with that of president of the commission. Given the importance smaller countries rightly attach to the commission's role in protecting their rights and interests, this proposed merger should cause some unease. It must be right for the European Council and the commission to coexist in a state of useful tension not joined at the hip by a common president. Ruling such a merger out would have been a further useful 'clarification' for the Irish government to have extracted from the EU.Sir Ivor Roberts, President of Trinity College, Oxford, is a former British Ambassador to Italy, Ireland and Yugoslavia.
An intriguing question, and one which is certain to arise sooner rather than later if Ireland votes Yes and the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, is who is to become the new President of Europe. The job description in the Lisbon Treaty suggests the main job will be chairing meetings of the European Council, the regular meetings of heads of state or government. But the reality is that he or she will be the person who will answer the Kissinger question posed 30 years ago by the US Secretary of State: "Who do I call when I want to call Europe?"
The one candidate who might be thought to have the hedgehog quality is Tony Blair. He knows one big thing at a time: Northern Ireland and Iraq being the obvious examples of the good and the bad hedgehog at work.
Blair certainly has the ability to face down other European leaders. But would it not seem odd for Europe to choose as its interface with the outside world someone who for 10 years failed to persuade Gordon Brown of the merits of joining the euro (despite his own personal conviction that it would be the right policy) and divided Europe disastrously ("old and new Europe" in Donald Rumsfeld's dismissive phrase) over the invasion of Iraq?
The German chancellor and the French president appear to be prepared to forgive and forget the Iraq imbroglio. But the Conservatives, having originally appeared unfazed about a Blair appointment, have now attacked it in vigorous terms.
Insufficiently European for some on the Left in Europe, he would for the Right, particularly in Britain, have the opposite fault.
For an Irish voter, not that any will be allowed to vote in this ultimately undemocratic presidential election, a further consideration might be the fact that the drafters of the treaty, (and I spoke to the man who drafted this section of it last week,) envisage that the president of the council's job should ultimately be merged with that of president of the commission.
Given the importance smaller countries rightly attach to the commission's role in protecting their rights and interests, this proposed merger should cause some unease.
It must be right for the European Council and the commission to coexist in a state of useful tension not joined at the hip by a common president.
Ruling such a merger out would have been a further useful 'clarification' for the Irish government to have extracted from the EU.
Sir Ivor Roberts, President of Trinity College, Oxford, is a former British Ambassador to Italy, Ireland and Yugoslavia.
the fact that the drafters of the treaty, (and I spoke to the man who drafted this section of it last week,) envisage that the president of the council's job should ultimately be merged with that of president of the commission.
Who might claim to have actually written the language I don't know, except that it was on the side of the Juncker and small-country camp, and certainly not the A-B-C camp (Aznar-Blair-Chirac). And the Juncker side was/is certainly not in favour of a powerful president of the European Council also taking over the attributions of the Commission president. So I don't know who or what Ivor Roberts is talking about.
Pierre Lequiller, representative of the [French] National Assembly in the Convention, suggested for example a single president of the European Council and of the Commission.
