Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Christine Lagarde is 4-1 to be next President of the Europe
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Christine Lagarde is 4-1 to be next President of the European Commission
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has asked France whether it would be willing to put forward International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde as president of the European Commission, two French sources briefed on the exchanges said.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1) She may not want the job, which is only powerful if you get elected to it.
2) Hollande probably wouldn't nominate her.
3) The report is vague but it's probably from before Merkel u-turned on Juncker. If she u-turns again she'll look ridiculous.
4) The member states can name who they like, if it isn't Juncker the parliament will tell them to piss off.
The member states generally take the path of least resistance, which in this case is to pick Juncker and give Cameron a lollipop or something.
Off topic, another independent body has checked the SNP's sums and found them wanting;
IFS: Alex Salmond's independence 'giveaways' mean deeper tax rises or spending cuts
The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that the savings highlighted in the Scottish Government's White Paper would not nearly cover the cost of all the spending pledges.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10873635/IFS-Alex-Salmonds-independence-giveaways-mean-deeper-tax-rises-or-spending-cuts.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27691901
Biased Al-Beeb sides with May and classifies it as an education story.
OTOH I can't see the Member States putting forward a candidate that one of the big players such as the UK did not approve of. The job of the President is to work with the Member States, find a consensus and help to turn that consensus into words. Trying to do that when one of the larger Member States was hostile would be problematic.
I think a centre right compromise candidate will be found and all this story amounts to is evidence that Merkel is looking for one.
I'm a posh ditherer - I hum and haw.
a) Lagarde would want the job in preference to i) her present job and ii) any intention she might have towards Hollande's job.
b) Hollande would nominate her unless i) he sees advantages having a French commissioner ii) he wants to nobble Lagarde in respect of a)ii.
c) The European Parliament would approve her if they thought they could still get Juncker.
That said I don't expect Juncker to get it too easily, as the treaty language says "take account of" not "be dictated by" the results of the European elections. If it was the nomination of Parliament and approval by the Council he'd probably have an easier ride but it's not. The nomination from the council is done by QMV under Lisbon treaty rules so a blocking minority can be constructed, and interestingly, as far as I'm aware, if any anti-Junckerite believes that a blocking minority under Nice rules is easier to achieve they can request a reversion to those rules.
Juncker may well prevail but I doubt quickly or easily.
Now the EPP do not have a majority in the European Parliament, so perhaps the clever thing for the Member States to do would be to give a nod to the other parties in the Parliament that they will be involved in the search for a compromise candidate, and propose Juncker so that the non-EPP majority in Parliament can vote him down.
Then they can try and complete the tricky task of finding a compromise candidate without having provoked a conflict with the European Parliament.
You could argue that Cameron has made this more difficult with his grandstanding, or that his insistence on not accepting Juncker is the only thing that makes it possible. From the outside it is pretty hard to tell.
I don't think the Member States (at least the big ones that count, small countries like Scotland would be are simply ignored) will be willing to accept a position where the Commission becomes the plaything of the Parliament.
The Treaty is ambiguous and it is clear that the views of Parliament have to be taken into account (if they can ever be ascertained) but that is a different thing from accepting the nomination of the largest grouping as the President. That would be a significant loss of power by the Member States which is, I suspect, Cameron's concern rather than which non-entity is actually appointed.
I suspect the Germans in particular might ultimately agree with Cameron on this and want an EPP candidate that is not the leader of the largest grouping in Parliament who the Member States can coalesce behind. If they do the Parliament will eventually lose out but this will not happen if the Member States have different views.
The EU is in desperate need of reform, as all institutions do from time to time, and a compromise candidate is unlikely to drive that needed reform forward.
Trouble is I believe the Parliament approval works on simple majority basis or 376 votes. The EPP + PES blocks have 403 and I think the PES will be looking at the precedent rather than the partisan politics. I think they'd vote Juncker to establish Parliament as the effective nominee and then hope sooner or later they get the most seats etc. I think that's the calculation of heads of govt hence they see the nomination process as the only place to spike Juncker.
It is an anachronism from the old EU and given its very obviously non democratic nature a bit of an embarrassment these days. A significant figure like Lagarde might be able to change that to some extent but probably not by much.
A Shy UKIP Vote?
A shy Tory vote is often noted in these hallowed pages, but it may be that a possible shy-UKIP vote has appeared.
Since the EU elections, the Cons-UKIP 2010 defections have risen noticeably. Just prior to the EU elections this was running in the 11-16 (ave: 14.2) range but since the EU it is running in the 17-23 range (ave 19.2). Will this trend continue after Newark? Or does success breed and encourage success?
The Member States thus have to avoid the scenario where Juncker is seen by the Parliament as a defender of their rights and privileges. In that case he could win the support of the PES and ALDE and command an overall majority in Parliament.
Indeed when the EU asks for more money - get rid of Strasbourg should be the answer.
Whilst I agree the moving of EuroParl to Strasbourg and back just to stroke the Gallic ego is a vast waste of money the fact is that the French will never surrender that burnishment to their pride.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2647757/The-Queens-new-palace-wheels-Wood-Newtons-apple-tree-A-bullet-Waterloo-Metal-Dambuster-Unveiled-today-carriage-thats-mobile-museum-history.html
Pissing it down once again.
In vaguely cultural news, it sounds like it's possible that A Song of Ice and Fire will stretch to 8 books. Much as I like them, I hope not.
So, is the process thus?:
Member states nominate a chap or lady
EU Parliament says aye or nay
If 'nay', the member states nominate someone else
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T7zyezBkuY
Like this one. Except, obviously, not as big.
Poor Byzantium. I bet Basil II would make a better leader than any of those mentioned thus far.
The budget for ESMA has gone from Euro 5M and 25 staff in 2011 to Euro 33M and 184 staff this year. Inflation?
Our #RoadTrip2015 journey so far: Cannock Chase (50 ppl) ➝ Harlow (75) ➝ Chester & Cheadle (80) ➝ Enfield North (130) ➝ Newark (300).
Times News @TimesNewsdesk
Sex and vindaloo lures young Tory army to Newark http://thetim.es/1kuUErN
Just saying…!
Worth noting that if the European Parliament itself was allowed to decide where it met the Strasbourg Parliament would be shut before the end of the week.
Thus the first challenge for the heads of govt is to ensure that Juncker does not have majority support in the Parliament, so that it is Parliament that rejects him, and so the issue of the Presidency does not become a power struggle between the heads of govt and the Parliament.
1) Unarguably pro-European.
2) But a credible reformer.
3) Speaks French.
4) Speaks English.
5) Able to get on with Angela Merkel.
6) Not obnoxious to the European Parliament.
7) Not obviously Britain's candidate.
8) Not from one of the original six member states (Italy or the Netherlands might not be dealbreakers).
I'd suggest this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Bildt
But he doesn't speak French well, I understand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27676000
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2647949/As-row-rages-man-set-EU-job-democracy-dirty-word-federalist-zealot.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/tsco/10872572/Tesco-losing-1m-shoppers-a-week-as-shocking-figures-reveal-pressure-on-supermarkets.html
I'd opt for Peter Bone on the basis that Buckingham Palace is big enough to lose him until past the general election.
Sadly it's normally a government whip which rules out Bone .... unless of course he get's an unexpected promotion this morning ....
Hhmmm ....
@charlotteahenry: Labour’s approach to the Queen’s Speech is very revealing http://t.co/vtgmiJ1VT5
BNP is a slightly curious case, as (if I understand it correctly) it is not the US operations of BNP that are accused of breaking the sanctions, but the French ones. Therefore the US may be acting in an extra-territorial way in attempting to fine a French company for something it did in France.
- The council proposes by QMV, Parliament votes yea or nay. If nay, the Council tries again, etc.
-The Commission remains the only body that drafts legislation so is still very important within the EU context. It's not correct that its role has been partly usurpsed by Heads of State civil service - for those of us lobbying the EU on policy drafting, the Commission is the only game in town. Its weakness is that it only takes initiatives if the Council or Parliament or a Citizen's initiative (the million-signature thing) asks them to.
- Not only the EPP and S&D groups but also the far-left (45 MEPs) are likely to support Juncker, and I'd guess ALDE too. He has a huge paper majority and the first non-Juncker nominee will get bounced. However, the EU tradition of compromise is strong and after a prolonged deadlock people would start to look for alternatives. Antifrank's Bildt is plausible - a Swedish pro-European dry Conservative.
- The anti-Juncker front will decay over time. The Finnish leader is standing down, the Swedish leader will almost certainly lose the autumn election.
What people looking for compromise need is a centre-right person who is moderately pro-integration and ideally endorsed by Juncker, but not so heavyweight that they scare the Council. My guess is it needs a period of deadlock and "crisis" before anyone else gets seriously considered. The underlying issue is not really objections to Juncker (who wouldn't be able to do that much as the Commission doesn't initiate legislation) but the question of Parliament vs Council dominance in choosing who runs the third leg of the triangle, with both sides reluctant to concede. That is actually quite an important pointer to the future evolution of the EU, comparable to, say, the Lords conceding the Parliamenr Act.
Are you mad ....
No he gets to wander the cellars of Buckingham Palace for eternity wailing as EU dignitaries and flunkies meet the Queen upstairs.
Delicious.
It would certainly liven up UKIP MEP gatherings, that's for sure.
By-elections always remind me of Dunny-on-the-Wold. I wonder who the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party candidate will be.
BNP cannot continue to be a major international financial organisation if it has no US operation.
Never allow Gordon Brown to touch anything to do with money, EVER AGAIN
Play hard, play fast, play to within an inch of the rules.
But do not ever break our rules or you WILL end up in jail and we will hammer you financially.
Contrasts with the UK's somewhat limp wristed approach at times.
Via @straneuropa: Rumours that #Juncker is about to pull out of EC President race. Big if true. Official confirmation needed. #EP2014
a government that gets out of the way and spends less time passing laws is a feature, not a bug, of Conservative rule.
More time for Select Committees to get on with stuff......
"Modern" is presumably to indicate precisely that it isn't a lot of hand-waving about the wrongs done by/to our ancestors.
From memory this is similar to the Delors/Thatcher arguments of No, No, No! fame.