Quote from: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno-in-brussels-eu-unplugged/brusselsbruno/691/helle-thorning-schmidt-the-next-president-of-the-european-commission/It's really far too early to say, but I have currently got my money on Helle Thorning-Schmidt to be the next president of the European Commission when the job becomes vacant this autumn.
She's currently the prime minister of Denmark but her political sell-by-date is long past making her about ripe to be chosen for the top Brussels job this summer.
She's just popped her head above the parapet to suggest Denmark should join the euro, political suicide at home but a good wheeze if you are positioning yourself to run for the commission.
I think she'll get the job despite some of the strange ideas currently doing the rounds in Brussels about how the next chief of the EU's executive will be chosen.
The European Parliament is currently peddling the idea that euro-elections in May will choose a commission president to become "a kind of prime minister of the daily life of the EU".
<snip>
Ms Thorning-Schmidt is a Social Democrat and if the centre-left is the biggest group of MEPs, I predict her name could well go forward.
She is a woman (a big deal here in PC euroland), she used to be an MEP and knows the Brussels circuit well. If her name goes forward can anyone really imagine MEPs voting her down, or Mr Schulz demanding a No vote to topple her from the job?
Here's the clincher: can anyone imagine gender-quota loving MEPs voting down the first ever female president of the commission to impose a male spitzenkandidat? Never.
This echoes Fogh's ascension/descension to NATO secretary general of about 5 years ago, her being PM and being basically unelectable because of domestic politics. Plus, a woman as head commisioner would include the entitled Juncker's reaction to it which I'm sure will be fun.
I thought the social democrats in the EP had Martin Schulz as their candidate?
Great, another Gucci social democrat. :glare:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/cameron-droht-merkel-wegen-juncker-lucke-will-zu-tories-a-972685.html (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/cameron-droht-merkel-wegen-juncker-lucke-will-zu-tories-a-972685.html)
Cameron threatens to quit the EU if Juncker is elected! Simply by advancing the referendum scheduled before the end of 2017... :o So says Der Spiegel.
Possibly true. The Reuters version said he warned Merkel about it. I suspect what he said was if they go for Juncker the Tories will go into meltdown and the only way he'll be able to placate them is moving the referendum forward. Which means it'd be without any attempt at renegotiation, so probably harder to win.
I do think Juncker is a dreadful, dreadful candidate. If Lagarde or Lamy or possibly Thorning-Schmidt are available I think you'd be mad to go for Juncker (or for that matter Schulz or Verhofstadt).
Edit: And a lot depends on the meaning of 'warned' there.
What's the beef with Junker?
Isn't he the clever fellow who first said, "We in the EU know what has to be done, we just don't know how to get re-elected after doing it."
He's particularly hated by Eurosceptics in Britain, he famously said of Lisbon that 'Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?' He's also - as are all of the mainstream spitzenkandidaten - very federalist. He'd be a difficult candidate for Tony Blair to have supported, for a Tory he's the worst nightmare. They'd probably prefer it if the EU invited Delors to take the reins again.
More generally I think the issue with him is whether we're correctly diagnosing the problem if the solution is Juncker? People are increasingly disenchanted with the EU and trust and belief in it is declining everywhere. I'm not sure a man who was in office for 20 years and has talked openly about how he prefers secret talks on some subjects is going to help with that.
I think Timothy Garton-Ash is right that 'a disastrous "the same only more so" response from Europe's leaders would be signalled by taking Juncker – Spitzenkandidat of the largest party grouping in the new European parliament, the centre-right European People's party – and making him president of the European commission. The canny Luxembourgeois was the longest-serving head of an EU national government, and the chair of the Eurogroup through the worst of the eurozone crisis. Although he has considerable skills as a politician and deal-maker, he personifies everything protest voters from left to right distrust about remote European elites. He is, so to speak, the Louis XVI of the EU.'
I'd add that I think the European Council should be very strongly resistant to the power-grab that the whole spitzenkandidaten thing represents. If it had worked and there had been a genuine European campaign then, fine. But actually 500 000 people watched the 14 debates the main candidates had, out of an electorate bigger than the US's. I imagine most of those were in greater Brussels. In Germany as Gideon Rachman pointed out only 7% of people know who Juncker is (only 17% know Schulz) and Germany takes European politics seriously. So this didn't work. The most baffling possible interpretation of the European vote would be as a democratic groundswell for Juncker.
Also there are talks about some very impressive candidates being available and interested. I think it'd be a shame if, at a very important time, the European Council overlooked Lagarde and Lamy especially (and I imagine the French would be very keen on getting the Commission Presidency right now).
Edit: Incidentally Merkel seemed very cool on Juncker a few days ago and this does give her a very good excuse to dump him while keeping clean hands.
Edit: And I think this is the best pro-Juncker case I've read I think the problem is I see as much potential for the negative scenario (' a weak, politicized commission in thrall to the parliament, enjoying only lukewarm support from national leaders, would strengthen the hand of Brussels insiders and risk fueling voter alienation from the EU') from Juncker as anyone else:
http://blogs.wsj.com/simonnixon/2014/05/27/europes-now-or-never-moment/
I'd vote for Messer-schmitt.
When did "spitzenkandidat" become an English word? I read that in an article on WSJ too. :huh:
Christine Lagarde would be an excellent choice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2014, 11:15:16 PM
I'd vote for Messer-schmitt.
Morten Messerschmidt is from the euroskeptic Danish Peoples Party. Putting him in charge would be the equivalent of making Rand Paul president.
Yep, in the wake of strong anti-EU vote nothing will make it more popular than to the states superseding the parliament and appointing a president by shady compromise.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2014, 11:15:16 PM
I'd vote for Messer-schmitt.
My vote goes to John Jacob Jingleheimer-Schmidt.
Quote from: Zanza on June 01, 2014, 04:34:27 AM
Christine Lagarde would be an excellent choice.
Lagarde? I don't know about her status at the core countries, but as head of the FMI she's hated throughout Club Med.
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2014, 06:28:00 AM
Yep, in the wake of strong anti-EU vote nothing will make it more popular than to the states superseding the parliament and appointing a president by shady compromise.
Almost as much as a power-grab by a minority of the European parliament of a traditional prerogative of the member states will increase the popularity of the EU.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2014, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2014, 06:28:00 AM
Yep, in the wake of strong anti-EU vote nothing will make it more popular than to the states superseding the parliament and appointing a president by shady compromise.
Almost as much as a power-grab by a minority of the European parliament of a traditional prerogative of the member states will increase the popularity of the EU.
They way the election was sold to the voters is that they would be choosing the new president, with debates and all. If member states weren't going to go along with it, then they shouldn't have done it in the first place.
Quote from: Zanza on June 01, 2014, 04:33:09 AM
When did "spitzenkandidat" become an English word? I read that in an article on WSJ too. :huh:
We've got no word for it so the German one's become the norm. Same with things like acquis, or communautaire (as an adjective), or formateur. There's no easy English replacement.
QuoteChristine Lagarde would be an excellent choice.
I agree. One of the problems with the spitzenkandidat idea is that a lot of very good candidates won't run because they'd have to give up their current position to campaign in an election which they will have no say over. Schulz and Juncker had no power over the CDU or Labour's European campaign and whether they 'win' or not would be based on national politics. So the only people who'll be available are the unemployed (Juncker) or MEPs (Schulz, Verhofstadt).
The British media's said Lagarde and Tusk would be available. I think they're both far, far better candidates.
QuoteYep, in the wake of strong anti-EU vote nothing will make it more popular than to the states superseding the parliament and appointing a president by shady compromise.
How did the groups choose their candidates? And will a Conference of Presidents in the Parliament be significantly more democratic? The governments of the states have all been elected with somewhere over 50% turnout and have far greater legitimacy than the Parliament just declaring that actually they (or the groups) will choose the next Commission President, not the Council.
I mean the Parliament's basis for this is this article from the TEU:
QuoteTaking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.
It seems an odd result to take into account the European elections and then appoint Juncker.
QuoteLagarde? I don't know about her status at the core countries, but as head of the FMI she's hated throughout Club Med.
That's a shame. The IMF's the one on Club Med's side within the Troika.
QuoteThey way the election was sold to the voters is that they would be choosing the new president, with debates and all. If member states weren't going to go along with it, then they shouldn't have done it in the first place.
Okay but this was what the Parliament said. The UK and German government both objected to it and said they wouldn't be bound. So did Herman van Rompuy representing the Council. It wasn't accepted, I think as much as tolerated as an experiment that failed - all the spitzenkandidat parties lost seats and votes.
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2014, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on June 01, 2014, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2014, 06:28:00 AM
Yep, in the wake of strong anti-EU vote nothing will make it more popular than to the states superseding the parliament and appointing a president by shady compromise.
Almost as much as a power-grab by a minority of the European parliament of a traditional prerogative of the member states will increase the popularity of the EU.
They way the election was sold to the voters is that they would be choosing the new president, with debates and all. If member states weren't going to go along with it, then they shouldn't have done it in the first place.
Then the voters in your country were misled, deliberately or otherwise; the election was not "sold" to voters in the UK on this basis as it was always made clear when the issue was even mentioned that our government would not support the candidacies suggested and that it additionally did not agree with the European Parliament's interpretation of the Treaties.
The various UK news outlets were also quite clear that we were not alone on this issue (as Sheilbh pointed out, Germany has taken the same position.)
As far as the British voting public was concerned the candidatures in question from the two largest groupings in the European parliament were either seen as being a dead letter or not even registered as being an issue. I think in general Sheilbh would agree with me here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AMWe've got no word for it so the German one's become the norm. Same with things like acquis, or communautaire (as an adjective), or formateur. There's no easy English replacement.
As far as I know, the British elections for the EP are proportional based on lists per constituency, right? If so, how do you call the first person on each party's list? Because that's just what "spitzenkandidat" means in German.
Quote from: Zanza on June 01, 2014, 02:19:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AMWe've got no word for it so the German one's become the norm. Same with things like acquis, or communautaire (as an adjective), or formateur. There's no easy English replacement.
As far as I know, the British elections for the EP are proportional based on lists per constituency, right? If so, how do you call the first person on each party's list? Because that's just what "spitzenkandidat" means in German.
We don't have a word for it. They'd be top of the list that's it.
And I can't think of a specific English word in, say, Haaretz for the top of Israeli party lists either.
Quote from: Zanza on June 01, 2014, 02:19:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AMWe've got no word for it so the German one's become the norm. Same with things like acquis, or communautaire (as an adjective), or formateur. There's no easy English replacement.
As far as I know, the British elections for the EP are proportional based on lists per constituency, right? If so, how do you call the first person on each party's list? Because that's just what "spitzenkandidat" means in German.
Since it's the only election for most of the UK that uses lists no-one's come up with a term; "here's the first name on the list" at most. It's not as if the leading candidate in any region is the party leader etc. as would be the case for a PR General Election so there's never been any need to distinguish people who are first on the list (and might get in even if they're LibDems or Greens) from those second and below.
Quote from: Zanza on June 01, 2014, 02:19:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AMWe've got no word for it so the German one's become the norm. Same with things like acquis, or communautaire (as an adjective), or formateur. There's no easy English replacement.
As far as I know, the British elections for the EP are proportional based on lists per constituency, right? If so, how do you call the first person on each party's list? Because that's just what "spitzenkandidat" means in German.
We call them "that bloke that I've never heard of" :huh:
Merkel and HTS in Berlin. RUMOURS RUMOURS RUMOURS.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqfEfy6IIAAAzyr.jpg)
British view is that it's now doomed to be Juncker (though Cameron still insists he's fighting).
Renzi's been the most interesting through this.
I don't give the proverbially flying fuck about this shit.
I'll bet I care less.