Europe's hour of decision
Sometime on Thursday night the European Union's 27 leaders will gather for dinner in the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels. Lipsius himself was a Flemish intellectual who thought the ideal citizen was a man who acted according to reason. The 27 leaders have important choices to make but seem likely to be guided by considerations of power.
They will have to decide who will be the European Union's face to the world. For nearly ten years European leaders have been discussing how to sit alongside the Chinese and Americans at the top table. One of the key strands to the Lisbon Treaty was creating two high-profile posts; a president of the European Council and a foreign policy supremo.
But as the hour of decision approaches there is uncertainty and, just beneath the surface, there are real divisions.
The task of drawing up a short-list for these top European jobs falls to the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. His aim is to turn up at the dinner and give the leaders a small number of names to consider. What is not being sought here is lively discussion or a pitch from the candidates or an opportunity to tell Europeans what their vision is for the future of the union.The Swedish prime minister wants a dinner where the successful candidate is toasted, not debated.
The fear that haunts this whole process is that Europe might appear divided or that any public disagreement might undermine the authority of the successful candidate.
What this means, of course, is that these key posts will be decided by horse-trading, a familiar European way of doing business.
The mood that seems to be emerging is for a compromise candidate, a chairman rather than a president who strides the global stage. That suits many. The big countries, when it comes down to it, don't want to be over-shadowed by a presidential figure. The small countries fear a strong personality could diminish their influence. And those like the Conservatives in Britain who did not support the Lisbon Treaty want as bland a candidate as possible. As William Hague told the Financial Times: "It makes more sense for the president to be a chairman, not a chief." And a chairman sounds less like
a super-state in the making.
These jobs, however, are not being chosen on the sole criteria of who will be the most effective leader. As so often in Europe jobs are carved up between various political groupings. The socialists have indicated they want the foreign minister's post. That means that the president is likely to come from the centre-right. Then there is the gender balance. Two powerful women, Margot Wallstrom and Neelie Kroes, said today that it looked as if "only men would be nominated". They pointed out that "the right man in the right job is often a woman". Politics, gender and geography all are put in the mix.
So where does this leave Tony Blair, the original favourite for the president's job?
If the emerging consensus is for a meeting-chairer he won't get the job and he won't want it. Late last week he spoke to President Sarkozy among others and he has not removed his name from consideration. The British government is still backing him energetically. When the German foreign minister was in London last week a senior government figure made a strong personal pitch for Tony Blair.
There is one scenario where Tony Blair could still get the call. If there is no agreement at the dinner, the Swedish prime minister will have to call a vote and that would be weighted according to country size. In those circumstances, Tony Blair could sneak it. He could have in his corner Britain, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, the Czech republic and several other Eastern European countries. His problem would be whether he wanted a job when there was so clearly opposition to him getting it.
If, in the end, European leaders go for a little-known consensus-builder some will argue Europe flunked its moment of decision. Expect comments like this which I saw from a politician in the past few days: "We've been talking about these jobs for almost 10 years and it is now almost as if people are getting cold feet about giving them to serious global players."
A few weeks ago the President of the Commission Jose Manuel Barroso raised the old question of who world leaders should call to discover where Europe stood. After these new posts are filled, he said, Washington would call the high representative on foreign affairs. Just one call. But after Thursday the two most powerful figures in Europe will remain President Sarkozy abnd Chancellor Merkel.
The indications are that when it comes down to it, Europe's leaders aspire to speak with a more assertive voice, but not at the expense of their own influence. It is rare in history that leaders vote for a diminution of their own power. They seem unlikely to do so this week.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.