Two cheers for the EU on the appointment of the two new figures created by the Lisbon Treaty. The choice of Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy is fully in line with the profile drawn (albeit vaguely) in the treaty, and his foreseeable interpretation of the role of President of the European Council may well end up clarifying the remaining grey areas.
Catherine Ashton’s appointment was much more unexpected and raised some concerns about her preparedness for the challenging job of ‘EU foreign policy chief’. In fact, there were more experienced and better known candidates for the position she has been appointed to, and the political logic that drove the final deal among the EU-27 was probably key to catapulting her into the post of HR/VP. Still, as Commissioner for Trade she has come to know and appreciate the way in which the Union works and defends European interests worldwide, which may partly compensate for her lack of senior ministerial and diplomatic record. Also, growing in and on the job is not uncommon at these levels, and certainly not impossible. Catherine Ashton seems firmly determined to prove that “yes she can” - and we must hope that she will, too, as the Union badly needs a more effective and coherent common foreign policy.
Does Europe now have, at long last, a “single telephone number”, as the (in)famous Kissinger joke apparently went? Of course not … but sometimes neither does the US.
What the Lisbon Treaty is expected to provide is rather a single Brussels-based switchboard and a directory encompassing the new ‘triad’ at the top (as the terms ‘troika’, ‘trio’ and ‘big three’ are already taken ..), and arguably also the rotational EU presidency (which remains alive and kicking in a number of areas), and possibly even the European Parliament, boosted by new powers and increasingly similar to the US Congress in terms of role and modus operandi. Still, while the main players are in place now and getting down to work, the new Lisbon ‘system’ may need some time to take root and shape.
The way in which the whole debate on the new top jobs was launched and carried out, however, left much to be desired and risked spoiling the new-found confidence sparked across the EU by the second Irish referendum. It started with the ‘spin’ offensive that transformed the European Council in late October into a misplaced referendum on Tony Blair. It then came to an early deal on a Van Rompuy-Miliband ‘ticket’. After the UK Foreign Secretary’s withdrawal, though, the debate ran out of control again, with virtually everyone coming up with new names, desirable criteria, alleged vetoes or demands - so much so that the 19 November summit appeared to be heading for a dramatic confrontation and possibly split, which would have boded ill for post-Lisbon Europe.
Now that disaster has been averted, in part also by resorting to relatively uncontroversial (and hopefully fitting) candidates, the lesson must be learned. True, this time around the choice of the new EU threesome leadership had to be made in a piecemeal and somewhat improvised fashion: José Manuel Barroso first, after the June elections and on the basis of the Nice Treaty; then, after the Irish ‘Yes’, the other two, but without a preliminary agreement on the institutional profiles, the political rationale, and the procedure.
Never again
Next time, in 2014, all this will be different. The legal basis will be clear from the outset and for all. Almost five years of treaty implementation will have given the new figures a better defined scope, and the rules of procedure to be drafted (or adapted) for each institution will probably contribute to laying the ground for the relevant decisions. Last but not least, the performance of the first appointees will influence the selection of their successors.
Next time, however, all this must be different. The EU Heads of State and Government will probably still look around the table to identify who can be the best ‘chairperson’ among them. If the role and powers were those of a ’President of Europe’, of course, the procedure should be another one - but this is not and will arguably not be the case.
Regarding the other two top jobs, however, the selection process must definitely become much more open and transparent. Personalities matter, and European public opinion has indeed shown great interest in the way in which names have been canvassed - and a degree of disappointment for the way in which the winners have been picked in the end.
At the start of the 2014 campaign for the European Parliament, therefore, the main ‘Europarties’ - which this time around played a partial but still ambivalent role - should nominate their candidates for President of the Commission and HR/VP. Their names and profiles should thus become part of the wider political debate across Europe and be adequately scrutinised.
The political balance resulting from the elections should then determine who would get which job - without any backdoor bickering, manoeuvring or horse-trading. By doing so, the overall legitimacy of the EU and its top representatives will be enormously enhanced also in the eyes of the citizens, thus strengthening their hand both internally and externally.
Meanwhile, in the forthcoming days European Commission President Barroso is due to come up with his new team. The 25 remaining names for the College have to be allocated to as many portfolios and form a coherent and reasonably balanced mix. If the experience just made with the two top appointments is of any relevance here, Mr Barroso’s well-known political skills will be put to a hard test: national capitals and media will be on alert to spot who gets the plum jobs and why. In this case, however, the required openness and scrutiny will be ensured by the upcoming hearings the nominees will go through in the relevant Committees of the European Parliament. They’d better brace themselves for a rough ride.
Antonio Missiroli is Director of Studies at the European Policy Centre.