RSS

November 20, 2009

Michaela

I think the NYT hit it on the head:

"If the point of the Lisbon Treaty was to create a more prominent face for Europe, the result on Thursday was the opposite. It appeared to be a political deal that would do little to reduce the power, stature and influence of big nations or their foreign ministers.
“It’s going to be difficult to explain to the public why there was so much fuss about the Lisbon Treaty if all we get is someone no one has heard of,” said one European Union official, speaking on the condition of anonymity."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/world/europe/20union.html

November 20, 2009

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (469)

Europe may have found a way to come to internal agreement through its own laborious processes, but it did itself no favors in terms of illustrating a real seriousness to have the political influence it seems to want. Irrespective of how effective these leaders are for the purposes of internal issues, if Europe wants to be taken more seriously, it must put some notable players on the field. Until it does so, it will be seen as an 800 lb. gorilla that prefers sleeping to foraging for food.

November 20, 2009

Bastian

Ashton and Rumpoy are competent technocrats. Good. That's what is needed for the new leadership jobs, which are according to the Lisbon treaty less impressive than they appear in the media.

November 21, 2009

Santiago Guzmàn, Red de expertos Iberoamericana en Gestion Publica , (2)

I think it has been a right choise, why? If I see this like a process, then it has been the first step or phase, because in the beggining it s necesary to make concensus, among the countries.

Santiago

November 21, 2009

Member deleted

According to an article on People’s Daily Online (http://world.people.com.cn/GB/1029/42356/10397219.html) :

“The clause governing the position of EU president in the Lisbon Treaty, Article 15 (6), is quite simple, and without specifics on its powers and responsibilities.

For the time being, this position has more of a symbolic meaning than others. But, in EU, many things evolve and develop in/during the process of real/practical operations.

Therefore, the first president (-elect) plays a key role in shaping/developing the future functions of this position.”

Hopefully, the international community would know, preferably in short order, whom to call when wanting to talk to Europe, now that Mr. Solana, EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, is stepping down.

November 21, 2009

Member deleted

The appointments may be good or bad depending which European perspective one likes most. Besides EC bureaucracy and puppet parliament we now have two more officials without authority, respect and proven skills at top level international politics. This means that big players are still calling to London, Berlin and Paris instead of Brussels. For euroskeptics this guarantees that EU will not be a key player in international politics its role will be controlling citizens with directives in small details, an discussion forum for joint economical actions.

For me free trade and free movement are the main benefits and if the rest of EU's tasks, organizations and actions would be put in damp site the loss probably would not be big with some aspects it could be the opposite.

November 21, 2009

Jakob Schirmer, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Gold Contributor (134)

To doubt whether Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton had real leading qualities and to complain about their lack of prominence shows a complete lack of understanding of both offices.

They are not meant to be "European leaders" and it would be even impossible to establish real and independent leaders in terms of EU law and the constitutional law of the Member States.

Whether they are a good choice? On verra.

November 22, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

The choice of Mr. Van Rompuy is one that reflects the structural power of the leaders representing the big countries in the European Council. As a relative newcomer, he does not threaten any of the heads of state and government. Moreover, he has yet to alienate the major players. As a national leader who has some experience having to deal with the fragile coalition politics in Belgium, Mr. Van Rompuy may be well-suited to the task of president given an enlarged Council membership, which is likely to grow. On balance, given how the EU system has evolved, this is not a surprising choice. The position of foreign minister takes in so much responsibility that it would be daunting for any one person. The choice speaks to a leader who knows how to play to the EU strength in trade on the global scene. How Mrs. Ashton acts to define her portfolio will be significant to watch as will her leadership to create the External Action Service, which will be complicated in terms of personnel selection to represent the EU in different parts of the world. Mr. Solana knew how to project his presence without stepping over the line that member states defined in terms of their respective interests. This is one of the most fundamental challenges Mrs. Ashton faces in the months ahead as she defines that position. The first year is likely to tell a great deal about how effectively one person can take on the required tasks of European foreign minister.

All the best and greetings from New York, Colette Mazzucelli

November 22, 2009

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

EU = opera bouffe, shame on our leaders

November 23, 2009

Stefanie Jennifer Tetenburg, King's College London, Silver Contributor (58)

Thank you all for your comments. To link this discussion to the Turkey week, I would like to invite your views on how you think the appointment of van Rompuy will affect EU-Turkey relations? Considering the anti-Turkey statements he made in 2004, van Rompuy's appointment may serve to alienate Ankara, as Ms. Kline has pointed out. But Mr van Rompuy did state in his first press conference that “From now on it is completely irrelevant what I think.” Do you think the damage has already been done (with AKP members expressing their concerns) or do you think he can successfully shift his personal views aside? Or should we look to Lady Ashton, who will have more freedom to take decisions without the EU heavyweights breathing down her neck, than Mr. van Rompuy?

November 24, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVP, Diamond Contributor (1092)

The news of appointing Mr Van Rompuy and Lady Ashton caught me one evening on a duty-trip and while being little surprise, it made me quite sad. I can only feel sorry that some commentators seem to easily let the EU leaders get away with what they've done. And what they did was actually disarming Europe in a time when it should devote its best minds, hands and faces to the frontline. I'm not arguing that both appointees are not the best in their respective fields, but favouring no-names before well-known leaders is a sin that should not be forgiven. Even trying extremely hard, Lady Ashton and President Rompuy will not be able to appeal to the Europeans, simply because they'll first have to put enormous efforts to get known, let alone listened to. The decission was something between provocation and betrayal, once again raising questions about its true intentions and the leven of unaccountability that the EU leaders "enjoy". Well, we should get them rid of that "joy", the sooner the better. But how?