Supporters of Tony Blair’s (unofficial) hope to become President of the European Council normally argue that he’s the right man for the job because he’s a powerful, media-savvy and strongly opinionated individual.

These attributes are, however, exactly the opposite of what you want for the new president of the Council, it would be the right attributes for a “President of the Union”, but that is not what the Lisbon treaty has created.

Saw this in the Independent and probably broke some copyright laws adding it to our blog. But i hope that no one will mind.

In other words, there is a massive misunderstanding that the media in the big European countries has fallen victim of: the Council is an intergovernmental body of the Union, it is the place where all 27 national governments get together to try to agree on a variety of different issues. It is not a federal body, like the Commission, where you would need someone to speak with a powerful voice (and the very weak José Manuel Barroso certainly is not the right man for the job, but that’s a different story).

In the Council you need a president who is able to strike a compromise between the Member States, and not a man like Blair, who has proven before (see Iraq war) that he is incapable of (or unwilling to) listening to others.

Maybe Blair should run for Commission president because this institution would need a strong president, something it has lacked since the departure of Jacques Delors.

Another misreading of the Lisbon Treaty is the belief that the new president will have powers. He won’t. It will be the – I love the catchy name - High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who will have all the powers.

That is a position we should not forget. I personally thought that Britain’s David Miliband would be a great man for the job, but, as we’ve read in the papers, he has rules himself out; however, I do believe that there is a (ever so slim) chance that he might rules himself back in, if Blair were to decide not to run for the job of the President.

I admit, it is easy to just rule out Blair, who, by the way, I only ruled out for the above reasons and not for any ideological reasons. Therefore I decided to also look at who should take the job.

The first person that comes to mind is Angela Merkel – with her love for consensus, accord and compromise. But then, she should be ruled out again because a) for political reasons, the first President can’t be German and b) she just won a national election and is unlikely to swap her Chancellorship for the job of the President.

Another name that has been floating around the corridors of Brussels is, of course, Jan Peter Balkenende, who has been Prime Minister of the Netherlands for the last six years.

Occasionally some have suggested Mary Robinson, who was President of Ireland between 1990 and 1997. Her chances are rather slim though, although she has some supporters that point out how she empowered the post of the Irish President.

Then there is Jean-Claude Juncker, who has been Prime Minister of Luxembourg for nearly a decade and a half. He, I believe, would be quite the right person for the job, having been a key designer of the Maastricht Treaty and EMU and therewith proven his ability to make national leaders find a compromise. His country is also in the eurozone, which most certainly seems like the right thing for the first president.

For the President’s position is that of a skilled coordinator and not a loud individualist, it seems to me that it is Juncker, who is best suited for the job.

Schreiber

The Westminster world has gone mad. “Telegraph-Reader” has become the most offensive word in Westminster these days; it even beats “New Labour”.

With the election to the European Parliament coming up, some parties are, however, doing rather well, while the Big Two remain caught up in the expenses scandal. We will see Labour doing terrible badly (maybe having to accept a fourth place, but certainly nothing better than a third), while the Tories will also not be doing too well (but they can still expect a first place).

Unfortunately, UKIP will be doing rather well during these elections. I say unfortunately because this party is campaigning for something impossible. Many UKIP voters will believe that voting for UKIP means voting against the EU, hoping that Britain will leave the EU. But, having Eurosecptic MEPs won’t meant that Britain will leave Europe, it will just mean that Britain will have (even) less influence in the EP. If the voters want to leave the EU they would have to vote UKIP during Westminster election (if Comrade Brown will ever call such an election). The EP however does not have the power to get Britain out of the EU (which of course would also be economic insanity).

Similarly, Cameron’s ridiculous idea of leaving the EPP-ED and form his own little anti-EU group in the EP is bad news for Britain. The new group won’t be able to win any votes in the EP, nor will it be able to veto a Commission on its own; for everything it will need the support of the EPP-ED, which it is unlikely to receive. It is understandable why Cameron runs on the most anti-European ticked in decades: it’s an easy way to reach voters. However, it is most certainly not in Britain’s national interest. It would have been much more helpful, if he had informed his voters of how the EP works and what it does. That would have diminished the UKIP vote and probably allowed him to remain within the EPP-ED which would have helped Britain to have a greater say in EP votes.

Of course no other party has done much either to explain to the voters what the EP is. Same is true for the media (with the exception of the FT).

Considering that EP elections are Proportional Representation elections, there is an actual chance of Labour coming in fourth (by the way, Labour’s good conscience, Polly Toynbee, argues in a good comment for proportional representation in, read more here). It will certainly be an interesting election day. Shame that the turnout will be so very low...

Schreiber