Full-term EU Presidency May Soon be Established

Related subjects: Diplomacy & Politics, Documents & Treaties, Europe, European Union, J.E. Robertson, Open Government, Rights & Freedoms, The Vote Comments (1)

28 October 2009 :: J.E. Robertson

The European Union is expected to soon establish a full-term presidency for the European Council of heads of state, separating that post from the presidency of the Council of the European Union, replacing the current six-month rotation between member states, once the Czech president, Vačlav Klaus, signs the Lisbon Treaty. The change will mark a major transition for the multinational bloc, which has been gradually building up a stronger common government since the founding of the European Economic Community after World War II.

Some conservatives and “Euroskeptics” fear the establishmen of a central government will turn the great civilizations of Europe into federal states with less local control. But this perception is partly semantic: the Treaty of Lisbon does not establish a federal system or give the presidency executive control over the territory of the member states; it does, however, establish new legal provisions for human rights and aims to bring Council deliberations into the public eye.

Since debate began over the wisdom of establishing a full-term president with executive authority, various European leaders have pushed for former British PM Tony Blair to be the first to hold the seat. Controversy over Blair’s involvement in the Iraq war and the UK’s refusal to transition to the Euro currency have led to widespread criticism of the idea. Now, Luxembourg’s prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker is suggesting he should be considered for the post. The heads of state of the European member states will choose the president, who will preside over the body where their voices are represented.

The issue has raised questions about whether a representative of a large country or a small country is a better fit for the 27-nation organization. When the United States began its constitutional union, its first presidents were all from populous states, but the Constitution was drawn up to give residents of smaller states more clout, through the Electoral College system. The United States Senate, the “upper house” of the Congress, gives each state two senators, whether it has over 35 million residents or under 350,000.

That system allows smaller states to be more relevant, but it also makes the central government far more important, causing many to forget there was ever a time when the states had their own national systems, with their own currency, their own militia, and even trade wars. At the dawn of the American republic, there were ferocious political battles motivated by a rejection of the idea that the states should give up their sovereignty or join a binding national constitution.

The European Union now faces a similar dilemma: how much sovereignty to the independent nation states yield to the central government in the interests of harmony, prosperity and joint security. The establishment of a strong EU presidency under a joint constitution puts the primacy of national governments in question, but may lead to a coordination of policy that makes for broader economic opportunity and a more dynamic political infrastructure.

The fundamental intent of the treaty is supposed to be to enhance the administrative efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the European Union, making its decisions more binding and its processes more democratic in nature. At present, most EU operations are referred to the electorate only during parliamentary elections.

Pres. Klaus, of the Czech Republic, is opposed to signing the Lisbon Treaty, in part because he suspects the Charter of Fundamental Rights (a rough equivalent of the US Bill of Rights) will erode his nation’s sovereignty. Also at issue is the cost of the EU taking responsibility for a broader share of international financing measures, including subsidies to help accelerate the reduction of carbon emissions across the bloc, which are projected to range between €22 billion and €50 billion by 2020.

If Tony Blair does win the favor of a majority of the members of the European Council, it is thought it will depend heavily on whether French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel can agree he’s right for the post. But, despite an endorsement from Britain’s Labour party PM Gordon Brown, criticism is mounting. According to the Independent:

The ultra-Blairite former Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, has added his voice to the criticism. Writing in The Independent, Mr Clarke says: “Tony Blair’s great strengths are not what the European Union most needs from this new presidential office”. He believes the new president needs to focus on behind-the-scenes policy work rather than representing the EU on the international stage.

Jan Fischer, the Czech Republic’s prime minister, has said Pres. Klaus assured him he would sign the Lisbon Treaty if his own country’s top court approves the measure and if the Czech Republic is exempted from a specific portion of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The wording sought for that exemption has not been made public, but the nation holding the current Council presidency, Sweden, will likely have control over such a provision.

• Join the discussion on European Union politics and policy on the Hot Spring Network