Comments on: Crunch Day for Europe President

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:54:09 +0000

Your blog last year is at
2008/07/18/broken-belgium/

As far as I can see, the difference in time-spans relates to whether we talk about ‘without a government’ or ‘effectively without a government’.

My source for 192 days is
http://crisisinbelgium.blogspot.com/2007/12/end-of-crisis-at-least-for-moment.html ,
which also discusses the way in which Mr Van Rompuy’s predecessor Yves Leterme “opened up Pandora’s box. And largely won the elections of June the 10th [2007].”

By: maryhoneyballmep

maryhoneyballmep — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:25:40 +0000

Martin, My recollection is that it was much longer than 192 days, and as you point out, I was there. If you look at the archives on this blog you will see the comments I made at the time. In any event, the length of time without a government does not affect the substantive comments I made about the post of President of the European Council.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:20:37 +0000

I have reached an age where I would be delighted if 192 days felt like two years!

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:57:05 +0000

…he [Van Rompuy] seems to be the only one capable of holding together a government in Belgium.

Or perhaps ABL (Anyone But Leterme). Yves Laterme seems to be the opportunist who stirred things up: I think people are drawing back from the abyss.

In particular the constituency boundary disputes (round bilingual Brussels) might well be approaching solution:

http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique/article/542315/bhv-sera-scinde-affirme-marcourt.html

I note with interest that Mary said that Belgium had no government for two years: I believe it was 192 days in 2007: I assume Mary was there at the time, so it must have felt like two years!

By: french derek

french derek — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:03:36 +0000

I object to your downgrading of Van Rompuy. He is the only one who has succeeded in forming a government in what you rightly describe as an “unworkable” political system. If that is not a qualification for the President of the Council, then what is? However, I oppose the appointment of Van Rompuy for those same reasons: he seems to be the only one capable of holding together a government in Belgium.

I note, also, that you omit Vaira Vika-Freiberga from your review. Apart form her aberration in supporting the Iraq invasion, she stands head and shoulders (morally) above Blair. Just read her CV.

By: Ralf Grahn

Ralf Grahn — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:10:47 +0000

I am sure that, having read this, those funny little foreigners are going to rush forward to fight the corner of your “very own TB”.

By: Daniel Oxley

Daniel Oxley — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:28:10 +0000

Mary, Your point about taking seriously presidential candidates from the smaller states of the EU is an interesting one. Personally, I think that the amount of money contributed to the EU by the candidates country is significant; he who pays the piper calls the tune.
From this perspective your prefered candidate, Tony Blair is more acceptable. Two nations contribute on a net average basis to EU funds, Germany and the UK. Germany’s Angela Merkel cannot be considered very seriously, she would hardly fit the criteria of an EU Commissioner in that she has not yet been expelled from Government, been mired in scandal or lost credibility with her electorate.
This leaves the door open for Blair who in any case paid handsomely for the position when he gave away the UK rebate. Surely two billion pounds every year since 2005 is enough.
The best selection would be to have a public election in all 27 states but this does not seem to be how the EU works. We will have an unelected President, 27 unelected Commissioners and an elected Parliament which does not have the power to legislate.