Presidential suite

Published on Saturday 14 November 2009 19:08

This week the first ever President of Europe will be appointed. But exactly what does the job entail, who is going to get it, and what will it mean for Britain, asks Hamish Macdonell

THIS Thursday evening, the restrained modern grandeur of the Justus Lipsius building on Brussels' Rue de la Loi will become the political heart of the continent as Europe's 27 leaders sit down to an "informal" dinner of Belgian cuisine.

It will be while they are coping with such traditional delicacies as stewed rabbit in sour beer and the finest of chocolate pralines that Europe's leaders will also chew over something much more difficult – the decision on who is to become Europe's first president.

Officially, the top job up for grabs is the President of the European Council. It is supposed to be little more than an extension of the rotating presidency which has led the council for years. In reality, though, this symbolic post means an awful lot more than that. There is a great deal of national, regional and political prestige – if not actual raw power – at stake here. There is also another job – the high representative for foreign affairs – to be decided over dinner and many analysts believe this is actually the greater prize.

However, as the waiters move around the long rectangular table on Thursday evening with well-practised ease and the translators lean forward to explain each little nuance of every conversation to their leaders, they will all know that the dinner is nothing more than a show. The real work in picking the president – the bargaining, the negotiating, the trading, the carve-ups and the deals – will all have been done beforehand by the ambassadors.

Every member state has an official, permanent representative at the European Council and it is this shadowy bunch of civil servants who will be doing their governments' bidding behind the scenes: in corridors, in parks and on the telephone.

Six years ago, the authorities found bugs in the Justus Lipsius building. The miniature listening devices were not discovered in the main conference and dining halls, where the leaders meet, but were in the offices occupied by representatives of the leading nations. The French, almost instinctively, blamed the Americans, but, given what is at stake when these top-level negotiations are being conducted in secret, it could have been almost anybody.

One senior European insider explained what will really be going on this week. "The dinner will be anodyne. All the real work will be done behind the scenes. The leaders will hope to get through the dinner without mentioning the presidency or, if they do, they will know exactly what has been decided beforehand. This is the way it always works in Europe."

The irony that the centre-piece of the Lisbon Treaty, which was supposed to introduce more openness and transparency into Europe, is that it creates a president who will be appointed in secret without a single voter being consulted. This is because the decision-makers – the political leaders of each country – were desperate to keep hold of power themselves.

"It is the people who signed the piece of paper who decided the system," says one insider. "It is a ludicrous way of doing things, but there is no way they are going to give away this power to the institutions themselves."

So the prime ministers of Europe will divide up the three new posts – president, foreign minister and general secretary – between them. It is possible that one strong candidate will emerge and be given the job on his or her own merits, but that is very unlikely.

What is almost inevitable is that national and political interests will be traded off until compromise candidates emerge who are acceptable to all. But the appointment of the president, foreign minister and general secretary of the European Council should not be seen in isolation. These decisions represent the culmination of the process of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. That distinctly rocky road began with an original agreement – including a European flag, anthem and trappings of a superstate – which was rejected by voters in three countries; a new treaty which was challenged in the courts in another country; and an eight-year watering-down process that is now about to come to an end.

But will it make any difference and what will it actually mean to Europe's 490 million citizens? SNP MEP Alyn Smith was this weekend being sceptical about both the new roles and the treaty itself. The SNP, he said, had opposed the Lisbon Treaty, and while all the attention had been on the SNP's objections to the loss of autonomy over fishing, the party was also against the continuing centralisation of power.

"The 'president' is in no way a US-style president, much as the words are the same. My local bowls club has a president and he is not a pan-national European statesman either," said Smith. "The job of the president will be to preside, ie chair, the meetings of the Council of Ministers, and broker consensus, issue by issue."

Tory MEP Struan Stevenson took a harsher view, condemning the entire process of finding a president and a foreign minister as an "insult to democracy". He said: "This will be done by a bunch of bureaucrats and presented to the leaders as a fait accompli. They will then have a 'difficult dinner' working through it. A 'difficult dinner'? That's not democracy."

Stevenson warns that with the focus on the prominent new roles there is a danger that the real changes being brought about by the Lisbon Treaty are being ignored. "This is a step in the direction of a European superstate. The parliament is becoming a fully legislative body, the treaty really can be seen as the final building block in the construction of that federal European superstate."

Like many MEPs, Stevenson believes the high representative for foreign affairs – the foreign minister – is much more important, and could become more influential, than the president.

David Martin, a Labour MEP, agrees: "This job comes with real power. The new foreign minister will represent the EU around the world, he or she will have an external action service and if not a staff of thousands, then a staff of hundreds at the very least. He or she will be the voice of the EU around the world."

So where does all this leave Britain? Tony Blair was named as an early front-runner for the presidential role. This was at a time when there was a move for someone who could "stop the traffic in Washington", and Blair, with his international profile, fitted the bill. His controversial decision to join America in the Iraq war, however, has counted against him as has Britain's traditional lack of European enthusiasm, including its failure to join the euro.

Blair's name has come back into the frame, though, as part of an Eastern European bid to counter what is being seen as a Franco-German carve-up of the top jobs, so, although it is not totally lost for Blair, he is still very much an outsider.

There had been an assumption that, if Blair did not get the presidency, then David Miliband, the UK Foreign Secretary, would get the powerful foreign minister's role. But Miliband has ruled himself out, insisting that he will stay and fight the election for Labour next year. This appears to be a clear indication of his intention to lead the Labour party after Gordon Brown stands down, and while this shows he has decided on his political objectives, it leaves Britain without a realistic candidate for either job.

It perhaps says a great deal for the prevalent attitude in British politics that a figure as senior as Miliband would choose to remain at Westminster, without the realistic prospect of power for some time, rather than accept an extremely influential job in Europe which appeared to be his for the taking.

His counterparts in Europe are unlikely to show such reserve and all the indications are that they will take the lead once again, driving the European juggernaut forward while Britain follows, somewhat reluctantly behind. So, at some point after the leaders sit down to dinner on Thursday, Europe will have its first president, a foreign minister and a general secretary. But it will also be bound closer together with more power exercised by those in the centre than ever before.

It has been an extremely long and difficult journey, but the Euro-enthusiasts who have driven it from the start have got what they wanted at last. The question no-one knows the answer to is: where will this take us in future?

President of the European Council:

The Candidates

Herman Van Rompuy

Prime Minister of Belgium

(centre right) Odds: 4/5

The front-runner for the top job, Mr Van Rompuy is a Christian Democrat who took a hard line on balancing the books and reducing his country's massive public sector debt.

He is also seen as a unifier in Belgium, taking a even-handed approach to resolving difficulties between the French and Dutch-speaking communities. He is 62 and an avid blogger.

Tony Blair

Former Prime Minister of the UK

(centre left) Odds: 5/1

Mr Blair has been in then out then in again. He became an early favourite when there was a desire for a powerful figure, someone who would command the respect of the Americans, the Russians and the Chinese at the negotiating table.

But Mr Blair's record on the Iraq War ate away at his chances, as did Britain's traditional standoff-ish approach to Europe and its refusal to join the euro.

The former British Prime Minister has come back into the frame, though, almost entirely because of a reaction in Eastern Europe against a perceived Franco-German stitch-up for the top jobs.

Felipe Gonzalez

Former Spanish Prime Minister (centre left) Odds: 12/1

Gonzalez has the political experience to rival any in the field, having spent 14 years as Spanish Prime Minister between 1982 and 1996.

He also took Spain into the EU, which gives him good European credentials. Mr Gonzalez is still popular in Spain and would attract the strong support of the influential Spanish government but his big disadvantage is political.

Europe is generally centre right at the moment and, as a Socialist, Mr Gonzalez will not attract much support for his politics.

He is, though, the only centre left alternative to Tony Blair which gives him a chance - although an outside one – of attaining the top job.

Jan Peter Balkenende

Prime Minister of the Netherlands (centre right) Odds: 6/1

Mr Balkenende is not one of the clear leaders in this race but, given the deal-making nature of European decisions such as this one, that may be no bad thing.

The Dutch Prime Minister is seen by many as the perfect compromise candidate and he could emerge as the president because he is the least offensive to all.

Mr Balkenende has a strong track record in government – having led four successive Dutch administrations. He is also from the centre right, which will appeal to many of his fellow European leaders but he has never quite managed to shrug off the comment made by Karel De Gucht, a former Belgian foreign minister, who compared the boyish, bespectacled Mr Balkenende to Harry Potter.

Jean-Claude Juncker

Prime Minister of Luxemburg (centre right) Odds: 6/1

If the European leaders want a president who embodies the spirit of European integration, then it is Mr Juncker. The Prime Minister of Luxemburg is the continent's longest-serving leader and the head of the Eurogroup of finance ministers.

He has been at the centre of European negotiations since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Mr Juncker is an archetypal 'European' and while this might encourage some leaders to back him, others – notably the British – will be wary of his federalist desires: his elevation to the presidency would push on the cause of greater European integration.

Vaira Vike-Freiberger

President of Latvia (independent) Odds: 33/1

'The Iron Lady of Latvia', Ms Vike-Freiberger is likely to get the support of the leaders of the Eastern European states, many of whom feel marginalised by what they see as a carve up between the established powers.

She is also the only woman in a position to contest the presidency and, if she got the presidency, it would herald a departure by Europe to the cosy clubbiness which has tended to dominate European politics for so long.

Ms Vike-Freiberger was a staunch supporter of intervention in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is well aware of the serious problems facing member states on the Eastern fringes of Europe.

John Bruton

Former Irish Prime Minister (centre right) Odds: 33/1

Mr Bruton is finishing his five-year term as the EU's ambassador to Washington. As Irish Prime Minister, he headed up a three-party coalition government in Dublin between 1994 and 1997 which was instrumental in pushing forward the peace process and establishing the economic foundations for Irish success in the late 1990s.

Mr Bruton has deep and strong European connections, having been vice president of the centre right European People's Party for some time, and he is another compromise candidate who could come through because of the polarisation in support for other candidates.

How the decision will be made

1 The 27 EU leaders – including some of the potential candidates – will meet for a 'working dinner' in Brussels next Thursday 19 November. The aim is to have a President, a foreign minister and a general secretary of the European Council by the end of that dinner.

As Sweden holds the current presidency of the European Union, Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish Prime Minister, is the official host of the dinner and it is his job to establish consensus between his colleagues on this difficult issue.

2 If no amicable decision is reached at the dinner then the posts will have to be decided by qualified majority voting in the European Council, and this is where it gets really complicated.

3 Each member state is allocated a percentage share of the vote depending, roughly, on its population. That percentage share equates to a number of votes in the council. For instance, Germany, as the largest country in the EU, with a population of 82 million would control 29 votes for the top jobs.

But the share out of the votes is not equal. Britain, with 62 million people, would also get 29 votes, as would France and Italy with the votes going all the way down to Malta with three.

4 For any candidate to be successful, he or she would need to secure 255 of the council votes, two thirds of the available votes.

This means there have to be alliances and trade-offs, with leaders bartering their support for, say, the president's post, for another country's support for their candidate in the contest to become the foreign minister, and so on.