Still on the European summit

The EU summit is still on, at the end of the second day. It is too early to comment on it, as I do not know what the outcome will be. But I said to a friend, a former ambassador, that I see it as positive that leaders spend a good amount of time trying to get to an agreement. They have in front of them big issues, with many possible consequences, and extremely high costs. These are no simple matters, and we are living in extraordinarily exceptional times. I would be worried if they decided to run through the issues, superficially and with no real commitment. It is true that some of them do have that kind of attitude. They are the lightweights. But the key players take these matters seriously. I can only appreciate that. To call names and badmouth them is a childish approach I do not accept.   

The forthcoming EU summit

On Friday, the EU leaders will meet in Brussels. This will be the first face-to-face meeting since the beginning of the pandemic. The agenda is about money, lots of it. They must decide if they approve the Commission’s recovery proposal, its budget, and the disbursement modalities. It is indeed a delicate agenda

There are two camps. One side wants the new money to flow to each country, with little interference from either the Commission or the Council. In their views, it is up to the national governments to decide on the programmes and projects to be funded, accepting however that those funding decisions must fall within the broad framework proposed by the European Commission. Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal are within this group.

The other side, led by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, advocates a greater oversight by the European Council. That would mean that country allocations should be endorsed by all, not just by the government concerned. It would give the Council, where the heads of State and government sit or are represented, the authority to say no a country’s allocation plan. They do not see this approach as interference. They think that the volume of money is very substantial, and it should, therefore, be used not only for recovery but also for economic and administrative reform at the national level.

As of today, it is unclear what the outcome of the summit might be. The conflicting positions show that some countries are convinced that others are not doing enough in terms of economic transparency and administrative effectiveness. They see a widening gap between development levels. And they are afraid that the richer part of Europe will be asked to keep contributing to States that are not doing their best in terms of political performance. The opposing side considers such a position as a prejudiced view. In my opinion, both groups of countries have some valid points that must be discussed. Indeed, it is time to discuss the reasons for poor performance and also some of the prevailing national prejudices that are still alive in different parts of the European Union.

Juncker's succession is gaining shape

Tonight, after the EU Council meeting, my bet is that the chances of seeing Margrethe Vestager as the next Commission President have seriously increased.

Manfred Weber, the leading MEP from the centre-right, the biggest political family in the European Parliament, is not getting the support of Emmanuel Macron, Pedro Sánchez and António Costa, among others. They seem prepared to veto his name. That’s not appreciated by Angela Merkel. But the German Chancellor has lost influence in the EU Council’s meetings.

Frans Timmermans, the Socialist leader, is the most experienced candidate. But the member States from Eastern Europe do not like him at all. As the current number two in Brussels, he has been tough on them, particularly on matters of rule of law and freedoms. Those leaders will say no to his nomination.

Michel Barnier is also a very respected and capable politician. His leading role during the Brexit negotiations have shown his high calibre. And he has the right posture. But he is supported by Emmanuel Macron and that’s enough for Viktor Orbán or the Italians – with Matteo Salvini on the background – to firmly opposing Barnier.  

Is there another name that could emerge in the next few days, beyond Vestager’s? It’s possible but not very likely. Unless the Council goes for one of its members, such as the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte. That happened in 2004, when José Manuel Barroso was chosen out of the blue and as a way of resolving the impasse.

Wishing the new Portuguese government well

We have now a new government in Portugal. It is a Socialist-based team but with the support of two left-wing parties, as they like to call themselves: the Leftist Block, some kind of SYRIZA-like group, and Communist Party, a very Conservative assembly of old and new nostalgic fellows who still believe that the fall of Soviet Union was a major disaster.

However, Antonio Costa, the new Prime-minister has been wise enough to put together a Cabinet that can be perceived as relatively moderate. And in his inaugural speech, Costa made the right use of the word “moderation”.

It is true that not everyone within the Socialist Party is for moderation. But if the leader pulls in the right direction, the rest might follow. They will keep in mind that in our type of democracy one´s political survival is very much related to being able to say yes to the Party leader.

The key question is about Parliamentary support. How long will Costa be able to keep the votes of its allies before a major political row takes place? There will be a fracture, I have no doubt about it. The point is that we don´t know how soon it will happen.

In the meantime, one should wish the new ministers good sailing, favourable winds. 

The current Portuguese political bet

The leader of the Portuguese Socialist Party, Antonio Costa, lost the general elections on 4 October. After four years of austerity, and conservative arrogance, to lose the elections says a lot about Costa´s political credibility within the general population. But the interesting thing is that Costa has managed, at least for the time-being, to regain the initiative after the elections. I admire that ability.

He has looked to his left and tried to reach an alliance with the far-left, basically a group of urban-based idealists mixed up with modern-day Trotskyists, and also with the Communists. The Communist Party is the last large old-school communist grouping in Western Europe.

It is not yet clear whether Costa will manage to sign an agreement with those two. He believes he will. Basically, he bets on the fact that such triad would be ready to pull together to keep the right wingers out of government.

But a legislative term is a long period of time. Costa knows, I believe, that such an alliance is fragile and will not be able to win the test of time. Sooner or later, and in particular as the economy gets the costly impact of a good set of social measures that are the conditions for the far left to be on board, the agreement might unravel. Costa might think that by that time he will be popular enough to gain the votes he could not get on 4 October. Maybe. Or maybe not.

It is quite a bet and the risks for his party and the country are certainly a matter of concern.

In the circumstances, I can only wish well to the vast majority of the Portuguese.

An Indian face in Europe´s politics

The Portuguese Socialist Party has a new leader: António Costa, the current mayor of Lisbon. On Sunday he won the party´s nomination by an overwhelming majority of the votes. He was running against the outgoing Secretary-General of the party, António José Seguro, and received the support of more than two-thirds of the voters. The mandate is clear. And the level of hope invested on him as well.

On the father´s side, António Costa has his family roots in Goa, India. His election places him in a very good position to be the next Prime-minister of Portugal, by next year´s autumn. To have a Prime-minister that is of Indian origin shows how much Portugal and Europe´s ethnicity mix has changed and keeps changing. This is the new Europe, built on old nations and new immigrants. This is also a Europe that has to adjust to a more globalised world.

In my opinion it is good news to open up. We Europeans need to have a much broader view of ourselves and of our position in the affairs of the world. It is not just about being more tolerant. It is also about getting a better grasp about the world´s diversity and how to insert ourselves in an international reality that has changed and will continue to change at a very high speed.