Van Rompuy/Ashton: The perfect Mr and Ms Nobody?

Finally, the EU topjobs are filled and the winners are Belgian Prime Minister Van Rompuy who will become the first permanent president of the European Council and EU Commissioner Catherine Ashton who will get the EU foreign affairs post.

Let’s start with the good news: The appointment of two nobodies to the EU top jobs is a good argument if you want to discuss with ‘Euroskeptics’ about the existence of a “EU superstate” – even they might agree that Van Rompuy and Ashton are weak politicians that are not likely not raise the EU profile. To all the journalists out there: It is also a good time to get your facts straight on the “real” powers of the European Council President. It is not the “President of the EU” and if you look up a few basic facts you might discover the explanation why Von Rompuy makes perfect sense (from the perspective of the European Council!).

Moreover, one could argue that issues will be more important than people. I don’t think the media will take any interest in the work of Baroness Ashton or Van Rompuy over the next couple of years which might help to define the job profiles properly and focus on issues. Both, Ashton and van Rompuy are not the most qualified or experienced people which can also be an advantage. Expectations are not very high so they can only surprise us …

Philosophically it is an expression of the soft power approach as both candidates appear as consensus builders that are able to organise majorities and get the deals done. Catherine Ashton already stressed her approach of “quiet diplomacy” which can be interpreted as a notion of  ’structural foreign policy’. It’s clearly a continuation of the traditional EU approach which, after all, proved to be quite successful in the last decades (generally speaking – obviously not in foreign policy…). And hey, it could have been even worse…

Ok, so much for the “good” news (if you are a hardcore optimist…). The bad aspects of the choice are somewhat more convincing. There will be no inspired leadership, no innovative approaches, no inspiration, which is  not a surprise given the lack of any relevant experience of both politicians. The European Union Law blog digged out an interesting quote by Herman Van Rompuy who thinks that “every country should emerge victorious from negotiations”. and that the institutional debate in the EU “is closed for a long period”. Plus, Van Rompuy is not a fan of Turkish EU accession.

Another interesting question is how did we end up with these two uninspiring candidates? Baroness Ashton is a real surprise, nobody thought of her as the new High Rep. Van Rompuy has been mentioned by the press for quite a while now. If you include Buzek, the president of the European parliament, into the equation it makes perfect sense as it shows an almost perfect representation with most formal boxes being ticked: East/West, North/South, small/large, a woman, left/right, … It strikes me that this kind of thinking does not produce the best results.

Especially the Socialists are to blame again. After failing to propose a own candidate for European Commission president earlier this year they now managed to get the High Rep position which was initially a smart political move. But then again Ashton seems to represents the lowest common denominator of the Socialists. They could have proposed a more qualified candidate – maybe even from another party! But it is fair to say that many potential candidates still prefer national instead of European careers.

Baroness Ashton is a solid and decent Commissioner but she does not have any foreign policy experience. It will be interesting to see whether she will actually be comfortable to interpret the new “double hatted” role which will be a quite demanding job! And Von Rompoy will keep a low profile:

As has been my custom in Belgian politics, I will remain discreet in the media, certainly during the forthcoming weeks.

So, do not expect anything spectacular from him! (Anyway, the ‘president’ post has always been hyped by the media – it is a chairman, nothing more nothing less! Frankly I don’t care too much about this president. Actually I think a strong personality would have caused more problems given the lack of proper ‘presidential’ powers!)

There won’t be a personalisation of EU politics which means that intergovernmental bargaining will become even more central to decision making. It seems that the French-German alliance is running the show again. At the moment, national governments think that it is not in their interest to have strong personalities at the EU level. Just think about Barroso, Ashton, Buzek, Van Rompuy…

Oh yes, and it is quite likely that nobody outside the Eurobubble will notice that the Lisbon treaty is in place…

Richard Whitman at Monnet musings highlights the external dimension of the decision:

What will outsiders make of these choices? In Beijing, Moscow and Washington policy-makers and analysts will be hard pressed to discern anything from these appointments. Neither seems to signal any clear intent for a new direction and character for the EU or the future direction of its foreign policy.

But will the Commission benefit from all that? I am not sure. Barroso is rather weak and uninspired. Much will depend on the new College of Commissioners. One thing is clear: The Commission president will remain the most known EU politician. Van Rompuy or Ashton are not likely to challenge this because they seem to be even weaker than Barroso.

We got the people that we deserve. It is the perfect recipe for uninspired continuity, boredom and status quo. Exactly what the EU needs!