Is that there won’t be a compromise under the Italian Presidency. I remeber hearing a few weeks back that the Irish government has been making plans to finish up the IGC’s business during its six months at the helm.
How much of the current worry is due to Berlusconi’s initial fumbles? Six months disappear awfully quickly, if you spend the first two healing self-inflicted wounds.
My sense of things also says that the institutional questions could be solved by retaining one Commissioner per country (everyone is already learning how to get by without necessarily getting to talk in the ministerial councils), the double-majority as laid out in the draft constitution, and perhaps a little more voting weight for Poland and Spain but not as much as Nice (that triumph of French diplomacy) gave them. But betting on common sense is not always a winning proposition with the EU.
As a side note, I’ll mention that I saw an Irish minister the other day in Vienna, and she mentioned that she was working with representatives of the next three EU Presidencies to work out common agendas and build institutional continuity. I wonder if anyone has done a thorough study on the gradual institutionalization of rotating presidencies…
Nah, I think it will be.
You’re on! Beers the next time we meet up?
I do not believe that any “6 month presidency” can ever do anything good. It takes at least one year in order to do whatsoever a job of responsibility in the layman life. Why the hell should things be easier in the political european tasks? I tend to believe that this type of presidency is only a “honorary” appointment and that the true power in EU resides uniquely in the EU Commission which, by the way, is not a democratically elected body. The 6 month presidency CANNOT have the know how to manage the EU, hence has not the power to move into directions not approved by the former. But, perhaps, is just what is wanted.
HW
While the half a year presidency is probably too short, and that is one of the reasons I think justify scrapping it in a near future, there is a tradition of working in what the press in Spain calls a troika, so together with the moment president there are both members from the previous and the next presidency working at the same tasks.
DSW
The real power in the EU does most certainly not wielded by the commisssion. It has never held a candle to the council of ministers, and has become lesss and less important during the last decade.
Antoni, that’s exactly what I was getting at with my aside about the Irish minister. The OSCE, for example, has made an institution of the troika for the better part of the last ten years. I suspect that this is done for other rotating offices as well, but don’t know to what extent it’s been formalized within the EU, or within any EU countries. How do Spanish troikas function?
Doug, I don’t think it is a regulated norm. Simply a rational way to get things done. I like the fact that it forces the various states to blend their own int?r?t du jour with those of others which may have quite different interests and in doing so are providing for the whole of the EU.
As for your question on the Spanish troikas, if I understand correctly your question, I think they have not be too bright. Aznar has none of the abilities of Gonz?lez, the results is that while there are quite a few Spaniards in important places of the EU organigram, they are rather relics of the past, like Solana and Solbes. The rest may be are worthy but they lack projection, and I feel that nowadays Spain has an impact below its weight.
DSW
Hi Antoni, I mis-read your original post, hence my confusing question. I’ll ask around and see what people know about troikas at the ministerial level…
The real power in the EU does most certainly not wielded by the commisssion. It has never held a candle to the council of ministers, and has become lesss and less important during the last decade.
I’m waiting for the European equivalent of the American Civil War, which, although slavery was the core issue, revolved around the issue of whether or not a State could secede. The US government at the time would not allow a State to secede, and would fight a war to prevent it.
Would the EU fight a war to prevent a State from seceding from the EU? And what issue would be dear enough for such a war to take place?