WHY THE SELECTION OF AN EU PRESIDENT ISN'T WHAT IT SEEMS

Marjorie Smith

           The EU's new President (as constituted under the Lisbon treaty) is due to be selected in Brussels  Thursday evening or more likely Friday morning. What will be a far less powerful position than many imagine, will be the subject of intense horse-trading and brinkmanship by the 27 Member States.

           Whoever becomes EU President will find themselves in an institutional position more akin to the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, a constitutional position more akin to the President of Germany or Ireland and in a ceremonial position more akin to the Secretary-General of the UN. In other words and in many respects, a sheep in wolf's clothing.

           Like any multilateral international negotiations, the process is complicated whenever there is either no clear candidate or that the selection process is semi-informal and unstructured. Both apply in this case. Calls for the President to be elected abound at the present time, yet for many, such a course of action would undermine the very purpose of the EU.

           This is because many people seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the EU President will be selected and why having a direct election would be problematic.

            The accusations in the right-wing press are flying thick and fast: Just like the Soviet Union! Decisions made behind closed doors! Typically secretive! Anti-democratic! Etc. Etc. These are just some of the ignorant headlines being bandied about by many and not just by eurosceptics.

            The basic premise to remember is that the EU is a club of 27 members, it's as simple as that. The members are the individual Member States, The commission is the staff and the European Parliament is the management committee.

            It's up to the 27 who they appoint and if there isn't going to be consensus, then a democratic vote will be taken amongst the 27. The vote will be by Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) with the larger Member States having a bigger weighting roughly according to population size. Seems eminently democratic to me.

            For those, who claim it is anti-democratic, what exact element of democracy would they like to see? If the President of the EU, as constituted according to the Lisbon Treaty was to be directly elected, then he/she would receive a democratic mandate that would serve as a competing centre of power to the Member States. It would also serve as a competing power to the directly elected European Parliament.

            Eurosceptics would end up with a new powerful trans-national European institution with a direct fully democratic legitimacy that would not be dependent on any Member State for their power base. Is that what they want when they accuse the present system of being anti-democratic? Of course not, they just want a stick to beat the EU with and any stick will do.

            The other main criticism is that nobody knows who is standing, just that the post should be filled by a person who preferably currently holds high political office or has done so recently. Since this is a new post, there is no recognised system of choosing a President, hence people currently treading warily. Secondly, it's inevitable that current Prime Ministers have not formally applied for the position, because it would be political suicide at home, if their names where formally put forward and they didn't win.

           The actual position is far less powerful, or influential, than many suppose. Unlike in France or the USA, the role of EU President will be one of coordination, representation and chairing not one of leadership, policy formulation and carrying out a democratic mandate for change. The position of EU Foreign Minister is a much more influential role and being an institutional hybrid, has far more scope to be a player.

            If those who criticise the process have constructive alternatives to what is currently happening would like to make their suggestions known that would be most welcome. But, as ever, those who are most vociferous about the EU are usually the most ignorant about it as well.

CAST-IRON CAMERON -THE CHANCER'S CONTORTIONS CONTINUE

By Marjorie Smith

As unprincipled as ever, David Cameron's latest policy dumping is the 'cast-iron' guarantee he made to his party, that he would deliver a referendum on the EU's Lisbon Treaty.

To those who defend his current position as mere pragmatism and a reaction to 'facts on the ground', this is errant nonsense and exposes Cameron for what he is - adept tactically but a strategic fool and a political coward.

When he gave his 'cast-iron' guarantee in Rupert 'Mendacity' Murdoch's Sun in September 2007 that he would deliver a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty he made himself a hostage to fortune. Anybody influential in right-wing circles (except William Hague it seems) should have cautioned Cameron with the advice to make his guarantee conditional.

All that was needed was the addition of the phrase "only if the Treaty has not been ratified by all 27 Member states of the EU and consequently passed into EU law". He could even have buried that conditional phrase somewhere in the latter paragraphs of the Sun article and still got the headlines he desired.

It is appalling that he either did not receive (highly doubtful) or refused to listen (highly likely) to advice that there was at least a 50/50 chance that the Lisbon Treaty would be law before a general election would take place in the UK.

Regarding the accusation of poetical cowardice, Cameron knew before his party's conference (five short weeks ago) that his position on the 'cast-iron guarantee' was untenable, as he almost certainly would have been informed by his close pal and fellow neocon, the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus that he would have to sign the Czech ratification sometime soon. Cameron was well aware that Klaus' signature on the Czech ratification would lift the last barrier to the Lisbon Treaty becoming EU law.

Yet, in his speech to the Tory faithful, he made no mention of his policy u-turn, no effort to prepare the ground for his reversal, no reference to the foolhardiness of his original guarantee. He simply chose to ignore it and for the whole of the conference hoped it would go away.

This though is not the end of Cameron's contortions, in a speech today he is will lay-out his latest position concerning the EU. In it he will promise to aggressively pursue a policy of repatriating powers from the EU. Furthermore, he will promise referendums on all future EU Treaties (or will he mean it?).

Firstly, his promise to get the UK to opt-out of the social chapter is doomed to abject failure. Like Cervantes' Don Quixote tilting at windmills in La Mancha he will singularly fail to achieve anything of any substance in any negotiations that might take place. Quite simply, the rest of the EU are not going to let the UK under a Tory Government practice social dumping at the expense of the other 26 Member States. He migh even be able to persuade a couple of other right-wing governments of the merits of his argument. His only problem is that he has to persuade all 27. Tilting at Windmills, anyone?

Secondly, his promise to hold referendums on all future EU treaties will also be shown to be hollow, if he ever gets into power. Is he seriously considering holding a referendum on the accession of Croatia or Montenegro to the EU? As any accession means that an EU treaty (an accession treaty) has to be agreed unanimously by all Member States.

If not that, what about an accession treaty that has some minor changes to how the EU is run? If not that, how about an accession treaty that has some substantial changes that are manifestly in the UK's interests, will he put that to a referendum?

Cameron is in thrall to his profoundly eurosceptic party,hence all his fifficulties with his vile partners in the European Parliament. He has neither the political commitment or the strategic vision to takeon his party over Europe and wil instead continue to pander to their petty prejudices.