Warning: The original language in which this blog is written is either French or English. The automated translation may be imperfect. Readers are invited to refer to the original version of each post.
Barroso, Van Rompuy, Ashton… Despite the joy and pride that the appointment of our Prime Minister to the post of first permanent President of the Council of the European Union may arouse in Belgium, it is clear that it is an unenthusiastic trio which will embody Europe from now on, in the new configuration established by the Treaty of Lisbon. Herman Van Rompuy, a candidate whom the Belgians have reason to believe will be perfectly suited to the position of compromised engineer that his new position will represent, was crowned by his peers for one reason only: no European leader knew him too well. good, since he didn’t have time, in a year, to make enemies. No one therefore had too many arguments to oppose his nomination. In addition to the appointment of this “almost unknown” in Europe and the world, the hypothesis of appointing a large diplomatic figure to the much more visible post of high representative in Foreign Affairs had for a moment held the rope: the minister current British Foreign Minister, the Labor David Miliband, the Italian Massimo d’Alema or the Spaniard Miguel Anguel Moratinos, were candidates who did not lack panache. But in the end, the backroom political arrangements led to the choice of Cathy Ashton: even in the last twelve months, the only ones in which she has held an international position (European Commissioner for Trade), it is difficult to find the slightest mention of some feats of arms. We will say what we want: it is not this duo which will make Europe dream and impose on Barack Obama, Hu Jintao, Vladimir Putin or Ignazio Lula da Silva… Finally, the way in which these appointments, first decisions of the “ new formula” European Union, have intervened, is far, very far from the objectives which are at the origin of the Treaty of Lisbon which establishes them. Let us recall that the gestation of this Treaty was initiated, during a summit in Laeken, in particular to “bring the European institutions closer to the citizen”, and to make the Union “more democratic, more transparent and more effective”. The leaders of the European Union have, with their first decision of what should be a new beginning, pitifully continued an opaque and unambitious political practice. (Le Soir, 11/19/2009).
Thus, this is what led to this famous treaty, the official objective of which was to make European political institutions function better, and the unofficial objective of completing the creation of a European state allowing ruling circles to escape the control of citizens in their respective countries . The long and costly process which had gone through three negative popular consultations, in France, Holland and Ireland, had required reformulations, negotiations, exceptions, pressure, parliamentary ratifications, following the usual panoply of circumvention of the public opinion familiar with the European policy of the States. It results in the choice of mediocre personalities, in the Soviet fashion, either due to a lack of available leadership, or through a desire on the part of the “big” States to control the situation covertly. But also to the establishment of a complex and bureaucratic structure, with a “stable” President but with a short mandate, a confusion of roles between the Council and the Commission, a rotating presidency with weakened but persistent powers. Strange process, strange organization if it really is a question of “bringing the European institutions closer to the citizen”, and making the Union “more democratic, more transparent and more efficient”. But is this really the desired goal? What was the point of spending Europe’s money and violating democracy if it was to achieve such a result? The New European Leviathan is mired in inadequacies and contradictions.
Barroso, Van Rompuy, Ashton… Despite the joy and pride that the appointment of our Prime Minister to the post of first permanent President of the Council of the European Union may arouse in Belgium, it is clear that it is an unenthusiastic trio which will embody Europe from now on, in the new configuration established by the Treaty of Lisbon. Herman Van Rompuy, a candidate whom the Belgians have reason to believe will be perfectly suited to the position of compromised engineer that his new position will represent, was crowned by his peers for one reason only: no European leader knew him too well. good, since he didn’t have time, in a year, to make enemies. No one therefore had too many arguments to oppose his nomination. In addition to the appointment of this “almost unknown” in Europe and the world, the hypothesis of appointing a large diplomatic figure to the much more visible post of high representative in Foreign Affairs had for a moment held the rope: the minister current British Foreign Minister, the Labor David Miliband, the Italian Massimo d’Alema or the Spaniard Miguel Anguel Moratinos, were candidates who did not lack panache. But in the end, the backroom political arrangements led to the choice of Cathy Ashton: even in the last twelve months, the only ones in which she has held an international position (European Commissioner for Trade), it is difficult to find the slightest mention of some feats of arms. We will say what we want: it is not this duo which will make Europe dream and impose on Barack Obama, Hu Jintao, Vladimir Putin or Ignazio Lula da Silva… Finally, the way in which these appointments, first decisions of the “ new formula” European Union, have intervened, is far, very far from the objectives which are at the origin of the Treaty of Lisbon which establishes them. Let us recall that the gestation of this Treaty was initiated, during a summit in Laeken, in particular to “bring the European institutions closer to the citizen”, and to make the Union “more democratic, more transparent and more effective”. The leaders of the European Union have, with their first decision of what should be a new beginning, pitifully continued an opaque and unambitious political practice. (Le Soir, 11/19/2009).
