Editorial

Europe's media could barely contain their apathy when the EU announced last Thursday its first full-time President and Foreign Affairs High Representative. The Guardian, hardly the most Eurosceptic of British newspapers, was perhaps the most unkind, with a remark that reflected the thoughts if not the words of everybody: "Neither (of the appointees)", it said, "will stop the traffic even in Brussels, never mind in Beijing".

The EU could have chosen a candidate with star quality, Tony Blair, who is so well-known that he is even a household name in the United States. But it went instead for Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy and the UK's Baroness Catherine Ashton - two people who are virtually unknown outside the corridors of Brussels.

It did not take this course just because Mr Blair is tainted by Iraq, significant as that may be. It did so because the EU proceeded the way it has always done: by finding the only solution that could possibly be acceptable to all 27 nations, in this case going for low profile personalities who cannot outshine individual member states' leaders.

This should come as no surprise. Although the post of EU President - who will replace the practice of the six-monthly rotating presidency currently in place - was conceived eight years ago, his actual role, which is still unclear to a certain extent, has been watered down over the course of time. There was therefore much less need to have such a big name candidate, though many cannot help thinking that a personality like Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker - who has profile and commands respect - would have been a better choice.

What EU leaders were chasing - particularly France and Germany, who were the main drivers behind the EU President's appointment - was someone who could make the other member states agree rather than disagree; someone who would not be accused of siding with any one of the big countries; and someone who has a track record of competence but not of authority. The move is clearly more administrative than political and the price the Union will pay is world standing.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi expressed contentedness at the appointments, but then declined to shed light on the one he still has not officially made. It is indeed ironic that the convoluted EU managed to announce who will occupy its highest offices before Malta nominated its 'new' commissioner.

Delaying the official nomination has potentially damaged Malta in terms of prestige - Commission President José Manuel Barroso had already been busy planning who gets which portfolio before this tiny island unofficially made its intentions known after virtually all the rest - and has done little to enhance Dr Gonzi's reputation as a strong and decisive character when it comes to making certain moves.

If Social Policy Minister John Dalli is to be Malta's new commissioner, the process is admittedly a little more complicated since it will obviously have political implications for the government - he will vacate a Cabinet seat as well as a parliamentary one. But the announcement of a ministerial replacement on the day the nomination is made public is highly unlikely, while the election of another MP is impossible. So there has been no justifiable reason for the delay.

The deeper question the Prime Minister will then have to address is whether now is the time to review his decision in March 2008 to have a smaller Cabinet. And when he takes that decision, an apathetic public reaction is not an option.