Pleasure in criticising. One of the roles created by the Lisbon Treaty has just been appointed and the other role has just been designated (Catherine Ashton is expected to be confirmed by the Parliament) quickly and by a vote at unanimity. As expected, critical commentaries have largely outweighed any expressions of satisfaction. In some member states, the press complained that a candidate of its own nationality had not been chosen. It is, obvious, however, that if there are two jobs and 27 member states, 25 countries could have reacted in the same way (which fortunately was not the case). The verdict made in the main daily newspaper of one of the big member states began like this: "It was not easy to betray a much sought after treaty and which is about to enter into force, but Europe has just succeeded in doing this". Nothing less! The accusation levied at the European Council for having chosen a "low profile" candidate is often bandied around and not only in the press: according to the co-president of one of the large political groups in the Parliament, the two figures designated are "insignificant, Europe has stooped to the lowest level". We also know what the welcome would have been for certain better known figures who have a higher profile such as Tony Blair, for example, because his name had been mentioned well in advance.
Let's find out first. We are all obviously entitled to have an opinion about the candidates chosen and express this as we see fit, but the way in which Europe is denigrated no matter what it does, requires clarification on a number of points and a response to several inaccuracies. We would firstly recommend that our publication be consulted, which at the end of Thursday afternoon had already announced the two winners. Our special night-time edition widely reported the clarifications and commentaries of those who had made the decisions and who had participated in the European Council session. These figures included the Swedish prime minister who chaired the session, Mr Reinfeldt, as well as several heads of state and government and the president of the Commission, Mr Barroso. They all made interesting comments, especially Herman Van Rompuy himself, who explained how he perceives his functions and how he intends to carry them out. It is appropriate to inform citizens not to make any a priori judgements. Catherine Ashton also spoke. Only information that is correct and as comprehensive as possible will enable readers to form an opinion.
Interpretations. After all this, the interpretations begin and I would like to swim a little against the stream of the systematically negative assessments made. What often is referred to as "horse trading", in fact responds to a demand for a certain balance between the political tendencies, member states, men and women. A process that is exclusively based on the majority/opposition principle, as exists within a nation state, would be unfair in Europe. Given that the EPP is the biggest group at the Parliament, would it be fair or admissible that it attempts to occupy all the seats at the Parliament? Is it not preferable that other tendencies are also represented at senior levels? This is called "horse trading" but I prefer to call it "political balance". Isn't geographical balance also appropriate, as well as a balance between the big and small member states? And what about the balance between men and women?
The role of the president. The debate about the role of the permanent president of the European Council is justifiable. There are reasons for choosing a flamboyant personality who is known in Europe and the world and this choice would have its supporters. This is not Mr Van Rompuy's interpretation. He intends to represent continuity (which is becoming more and more essential) and consensus at a European level. His personal opinions have no importance and he won't even make them known. His role is to find consensus, while respecting diversity and being in permanent consultation with the Commission and Parliament. It is clear that he does not consider himself as "President of Europe" (which does not exist) but rather, as the president of one of its institutions, in respect of the institutional balance (therefore of the Community method, even if he did not use these terms). This will ensure that the European Union's institutional profile in the world becomes more visible and stronger.
It is appropriate to discuss the way in which his role ought to be interpreted but it is even more appropriate that this interpretation is presented correctly.
Democratic choices. As for the accusations of the antidemocratic aspect of the procedure followed, it is obvious that all appeals for clarity and transparency are welcome and that improvements are possible. Let's not forget, however, that the nominations procedure is included in the Lisbon Treaty and was approved by all the parliaments of the member states: it is the heads of government, freely elected by citizens who choose who presides over them and who is the president of the European Council, not the president of the European Union.
I consider nonetheless, that these quarrels about procedures and personalities leave out what really counts. What really counts can be found elsewhere and this column will be looking at this next week.
(F.R./transl.rh)