Europe gets cold feet

The EU's decision to give two of its top jobs - created by the Lisbon Treaty - to politicians relatively unknown on the international stage has dismayed those who wanted to give the EU more clout on the global scene, but shows that the bloc is not a super-state, nor is it going to become one in the foreseeable future.

EU leaders went for low-key figures in choosing Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as President of the European Council and European Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton as Foreign Policy High Representative.

By appointing Van Rompuy, the EU went for a competent chairman rather than a powerful super president. The choice of Lady Ashton was almost certainly a consolation prize to Britain after Tony Blair was not given the top job and to ensure a woman received a prominent job.

The EU also decided to go for a balance in the two posts: Van Rompuy, a centre-right politician, is from a small state, while Lady Ashton is a centre-left politician from a big EU state.

When the EU originally decided to modernise its institutions in 2001, France and the UK - the two countries mostly in favour of a full-time presidency - were of the opinion that the President of the Council should be someone capable of speaking on equal terms with the leaders of countries such as China, the US, Russia and India. France has obviously changed its mind since then, naturally with a little help from Germany.

One EU diplomat at last Thursday's summit summed up the situation perfectly when he was quoted in the international media as saying: "It's almost as if they (EU leaders) took a look at these jobs and were scared at what they created. You could say it's a sign that people are tired of assigning more power to Brussels."

Van Rompuy, however, does have qualities that would make him a very good 'chairman' of the EU.

A multi-lingual Flemish Christian Democrat, he has won praise for his balanced approach to his country's endless conflicts between Dutch and French speakers.

He is a consensus-builder and a skilled political operator, which will serve him well in his new post, and he was also praised for slashing his country's high public debt when he was Budget Minister in the 1990s. That he comes from a small country like Belgium is welcome news for the EU's smaller member states, such as Malta.

In a nutshell, Von Rompuy's role is to chair EU summits, drive forward the work of the EU Council of Ministers, facilitate cohesion and consensus and represent the EU on the world stage.

However, this job description remains somewhat vague, and a lot will depend on just what Van Rompuy makes of this new post.

Lady Ashton has no experience in foreign affairs; she once worked for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (which I'm sure will be used against her when she is grilled by the European Parliament) and has only served in the Commission since last year. A life peer since 1999, she is an unelected politician and held various junior ministerial posts under Blair.

Gordon Brown promoted her to Leader of the Lords when he became Prime Minister in 2007, where she played a leading role in getting the Lisbon Treaty approved.

As Trade Commissioner she presided over a free trade agreement with South Korea and is said to have forged a good working relationship with Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

As Foreign Policy High Representative, Lady Ashton will conduct the EU's foreign and security policy, serve as Commission vice-president, express the EU's position on foreign policy - as long as this is a common position - and control a new EU diplomatic service of up to 5,000 people and a budget worth billions of euros.

So, is Henry Kissinger's famous question, "Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?", finally answered? Not quite, although it might have been if Blair had been given the top job.

True, Van Rompuy is to chair EU summits and represent the EU on the world stage, but where does that leave Barroso and Lady Ashton?

Besides the possible confusion caused by having three top officials who can speak on behalf of the EU, the basic message from the summit is that the EU is not keen on having new high-profile jobs in Brussels and that the nation states in Europe are still supreme.

It is therefore all the more likely that the leaders of the US, China, Russia and India will continue to deal with the EU on a bilateral basis through their links with London, Berlin and Paris.

I still think these two posts created by the Lisbon Treaty are a step in the right direction, but they are certainly not going to create the drastic change some had predicted.