Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker

Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker completed today their mandates as leaders of the EU. I think it is fair to say that both have committed themselves deeply to their jobs. Donald Tusk as head of the Council had to manage and balance the views of his peers, the Heads of State and Government of the EU Member States. Not an easy job. One of his headaches came from his own country, Poland. Jean-Claude Juncker had to lead the machinery and achieve results, notwithstanding the fact that, at the same time, he was dealing with a major distraction, the Brexit negotiations.

As they move on, I think one should say thank you for the work they have done as well as for the enormous patience they have displayed. And we should know that patience and perseverance are two of the key features a leader should possess. Particularly a leader that deals with 28 national masters.

Boris Johnson's weird proposal

The plan the British Prime Minister sent to Brussels today, regarding a withdrawal agreement with the EU, is a construction in the air. It’s not grounded on realistic operational premises, meaning, it is unclear in terms of its day-to-day implementation. And it plays with words and images, basically to show to the British voters this plan is different from the one Theresa May had agreed upon. It is not about substance and cooperation, it is about personal ambition and party politics in the UK. 

The EU leaders are not convinced. However, they played smart in their reactions to Boris Johnson’s proposal. They said they would look at it with the required attention. That’s a diplomatic way of saying we are not convinced but do not want to kill hope right away. Brussels does not want to give the British PM any chance that would allow him to blame the EU for a No Deal situation. It is true he will blame in any case, but without any definitive proof. 

Besides the confusing lines, the plan was presented almost like an ultimatum from the British side to the European one. That is not very smart. Key leaders in Europe will take such approach as an affront. Politically, Boris Johnson's tone calls for a response that might further complicate the Brexit issue. This is no time for “take it or leave it”, as the PM is saying. That is unwise, but not surprising as Boris Johnson is more interested in impressing the British nationalists than in finding a solution to his country’s future relationship with Europe. He is already campaigning. The bizarre Brexit plan he submitted today is part and parcel of his electoral strategy. Not much more than that.

Japan and the EU, on the same side

I am not sure that Friday afternoon is a good time for great political moves. At least, from the perspective of public information and support. The weekend is around the corner and the media tend to go slow. If they mention the action, it will be in a lazy line that gets lost fast. On Monday, it is already an old story. And it would have been overtaken by events happening during the weekly break.

The deal signed on Friday between the President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister of Japan seems to have fallen into this trap. Jean-Claude Juncker and Shinzo Abe put their signature of approval on an ambitious agreement that will see both sides cooperating in different parts of the developing world, including in the Balkans and other countries of Europe outside the EU, to build infrastructure and promoting digital industries. A lot of emphasis will be placed on thorough development projects, sustainability, transparency, national ownership and partnerships with the recipient countries and the appropriate multilateral organisations.

They called it a connectivity partnership between the EU and Japan. It can work, if we consider these are two of the largest economies. Together, they represent over 23 trillion US dollars of GDP, which is larger than the US ($21 trillion). And much bigger than China (USD 9.2 trillion).

The point is about politics. Both sides must make this cooperation a priority when dealing with developing nations. And they will be competing with China’s offer, the fast-moving Belt and Road Initiative. That will not be an easy competition. The Chinese leadership are deeply invested in the Initiative. To compete, the Europeans and the Japanese have no choice but to insist on projects that have the support of the populations – not just of the political leaders in the concerned countries – and are financially sound and proper. These are no technical or money matters. They are about strategic political engagements.

No Deal, soon in a street near you

31 October is not too far away. But it is far enough for us to be able to say what is going to happen to the UK’s Brexit. However, it should be clear, at this stage, that the No Deal is very likely. If, in the end, we get to that point, it is obvious that the relations between the EU and the UK will reach a very low point. It will take a lot of time to recover from such a fall. And that will also have an impact on other forms of cooperation between the two sides. It will certainly be, if it happens, a most defining moment in the history of modern Europe.

The new European leadership team

On international affairs, the new European leadership team will have to deal with an interesting deck of cards. I mean the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, the US Donald Trump, the very strategic Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, the unreliable Boris Johnson in the UK, just to mention some of them. I could add Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu in Israel, if he survives the next round of elections, Nicolás Maduro, and so on. That is a most unique scenario that is waiting for them. The international scene shows all the signs of a perfect storm. And I am not mentioning the tricky situation around Iran, a major epicentre of a potential catastrophe. 

On the domestic front, within the EU space, they will be confronting Matteo Salvini, the strong man in Italy, Viktor Orbán and his neighbours in the Czech Republic and Poland, political instability in Belgium, Spain and Romania, as well as lots of pressure to move faster in areas that divide the European nations, such as the common defence, the climate emergency, the Brexit negotiations, and the pivot to Africa.

This is a most challenging environment. It requires a very strong and united leadership team. Not easy, not easy at all for a team that comes to power almost by chance. Let’s keep watching how strong and determined the new team is.

I see the EU Council as positive

The European Council could not reach an agreement on nominations to the big positions. The decision is particularly difficult when it comes to agree on Jean-Claude Juncker’s successor.

The European political scene is divided, and no political group is strong enough to get its candidate through. Alliances and balancing acts are required. And those things take time to achieve.

I do not share the view of those who think the European Council meeting was a disaster. For me, it was an opportunity to clarify the different national interests and the personal dimensions of each possible candidate. They are now much clearer and that should allow Donald Tusk to come up with a combination of names that could meet the calls for fairness, geographical balance, experience, political diversity and gender equality.

The Heads of State and Government that made disparaging remarks after this Council meeting must be reminded that leadership requires maturity, capacity to negotiate in good faith and patience. European construction is not a straight line. And it is not about fulfilling the demands coming from the so-called big countries. It is a consensus project. That is the only source of its strength.

The European Council meeting

A couple of senior French journalists, seasoned when it comes to cover events around the EU in Brussels, wrote that the European Council meeting of yesterday and today ended up by being a great victory for President Macron. Such comment is a serious mistake. The summit was not about Macron versus Merkel, as they want us to see it. It was a meeting of leaders, twenty-seven of them. They were presented with three names as possible candidates to Juncker’s succession. The names were based on the spitzenkandidat approach. And none of the candidates got enough traction to be considered for the job of President of the European Council. Not because of Emmanuel Macron’s opposition. Not because the spitzencandidat approach was rejected. It is just that each candidate had several leaders that opposed their nomination. And that’s how Europe should work. The head of the new Commission must be someone that meets the approval and respect of the heads of State and government. That is more necessary than ever. It will take a bit more time to decide. But this is a very important decision. A collective one, not a French chauvinist move.

The incoming President of the EU Commission

Regarding the choice of Jean-Claude Juncker’s successor, the informal consultations between the leaders have yet to point towards a consensus.

There was a dinner last Friday, here in Brussels, that brought together six Prime Ministers, representing the three main European political families: the centre-right, the liberals and the social-democrats. It did not go very far, except for showing that Manfred Weber, the centre-right candidate, has very little chances of getting the European Commission Presidency. He is perceived as not belonging to the circle of top leaders, Prime Ministers or former Presidents.

Today we learned that President Macron is pushing for Chancellor Angela Merkel as the best choice. But the Chancellor is not ready to move to Brussels. Her party is losing ground in Germany and she wants to remain focused on recovering the support of the German voters.

We never know, of course.

But we know that the European Commission needs a strong and clear-minded leader. One that can be respected by the heads of State and Government and projects an image that inspires trust and hope among the citizens of Europe. Also, that can talk to Presidents Trump, Putin, or Xi, with the necessary standing. He or she must be a heavyweight. Therefore, the choice is a very delicate matter.

Some people might think that in the end what matters is Emmanuel Macron’s or Angela Merkel’s opinion. That’s certainly not the case this time. Every national leader’s opinion matter. The current climate must recognise that fact. The selection must convince everyone.

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.

The next boss in Brussels

The results are out, and most of the European voters decided to support the common goal of a stronger Europe. That’s great news. Everybody knows there was a lot of anxiety about a possible shift towards the extreme parties. They have gained votes but not in a significant way.  

Tomorrow the heads of State and Government will meet in Brussels to launch the consultations about the nomination of the next European Commission President. My position on this matter is clear. Jean-Claude Juncker’s successor must come from one of the leading candidates that has competed for the European Parliament. That’s the way we can show respect for the Parliament and for the voters. The heads of national States must not bring forward someone that has not campaigned. Even if that person is somebody of Michel Barnier’s calibre.

The three main contenders are Manfred Weber, the head of European People’s Party grouping, Frans Timmermans, from the Socialist group and Margrethe Vestager, from the Liberal-centre family. They all have the potential to lead the Commission. They must be given priority attention.

My preference would go for Frans Timmermans. He has shown, as Vice-President to Juncker, strong political courage and clear ideas. He has a deep executive experience as well. But that’s not enough, when it comes to horse trading among the heads of Sate and Government.

Angela Merkel will fight for her spitzenkandidat, Manfred Weber. He is not liked by Emmanuel Macron. There will certainly be another clash between Merkel and Macron.

A woman must also get a top position in Brussels. This cannot be ignored by the leaders. It could be Vestager in the Commission or the outgoing Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė, who could take Donald Tusk’s position. They are both top-notch candidates.

Juncker´s sucession

Last evening, I watched the debate among the six lead candidates for the European Parliament. This was a good initiative, thanks to Euronews, the TV channel.

Six people is a lot of participants and the conversation is therefore constrained by the time available and the balance that is needed between each candidate. The key subjects end up by being treated superficially, more as statements and slogans and less as part of a substantive dialogue. This was the main limitation. But the discussion took place in a civilised manner and was good enough to keep the viewers interested.

It was also relevant to see two young women in the podium. Both did well, notwithstanding the fact that one is a liberal and the other a green activist. I also found the socialist candidate, Frans Timmermans, to be firm and clear in his positions. He flies much higher than many members of his political family. I do not know what will happen to him in the period ahead, but I am happy to know that at least he will have a strong voice in the next European Parliament.

Manfred Weber is the centre-right candidate. That’s the same European People’s Party to which Jean-Claude Juncker belongs. He is young and has a good track record as a parliamentarian. But he lacks charisma. And he should follow some voice training sessions. Voice power is essential for a leader.

They all aspire to be the next President of the European Commission. I am not sure if anyone of them will get the job. My guess, at this moment, is that Margrethe Vestager stands a good chance. She could be a compromise candidate between the left and the right.

The successor to Juncker must see his or her political family do well in the forthcoming elections. However, that is not enough. The heads of State and government will have a strong say. Their first attempt at deciding who should be the next boss of the European Commission will take place on May 28. At this stage, we can speculate a lot about names. There is already an intense social media exchange about the matter. In my opinion that is, for now, a waste of time.  

Full respect for the British people

In the UK, those Conservative opinion-makers who are unconditionally for Brexit want their readers to believe the EU leaders do not respect the British democratic system and, above all, most of the British people.

That message is false. It is just biased propaganda to justify their own personal frenzy for Brexit.

Brexit might be a major mistake, in terms of its negative consequences for both the UK and the EU. Those fellows know it. But they have a very strong ideological position about it. The extreme Conservatives believe they can gain lots of political leverage if they mine the nationalist feelings that led many citizens to vote for the exit.

That’s what makes such opinion writers tick.

The truth is however very different. In the rest of the EU, the leaders and intellectuals that really matter respect whatever in the end the British will decide about their future links with the European space. We recognise the UK’s right to decide. And there are two more political dimensions we should keep repeating. First, the EU does not want to humiliate the people of the UK and their political establishment. Second, we recognise the evidence that shows that Brexit weakens the UK and the EU. It is bad for both sides.  

Juncker's major shortcoming

On this European Day, I wrote in my Portuguese language blog “Vistas Largas” that a lot has been achieved in terms of our common future and joint response to many challenges. But I also added that the European Commission has been mediocre in matters of strategic communications. There is no Commissioner with that kind of portfolio – this should be corrected when the new team takes power in November. And the Commission seems to believe that press conferences, press releases and a crowd of spokespersons are enough to cover the information needs of the European citizens. That’s not a strategic approach. And the experience has shown that it is not enough to keep the citizens aware and get their active involvement in European matters.

If people do not know, they do not support. And they become vulnerable to those who lie and disseminate anti-EU propaganda. That’s where many of us find ourselves today, a few weeks before the next European parliamentary election.

This is a major failure of the outgoing Juncker team. A far-reaching one.

Europe and China

Brexit issues made us lose sight of the joint meeting on 26 March between Xi Jinping, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker. The main credit for such summit should be given to the French President. He took the initiative and was able to convince the Chinese President to accept it.

Xi Jinping was visiting France. President Macron´s message to him was friendly but unambiguous: you should not intent to establish good relations with any of the European countries, including the larger ones, without considering the EU context and the fact the countries are part of a political union. Member States keep their independence, that is very much true, but they are also inserted in a larger system of common interests.

I see three messages in all this. First, there is a balance to be respected between individual and common European political objectives. Second, no bilateral action undertaken by China should be perceived as undermining the EU´s unity. This latter point must also be practised by the European countries. When dealing with China, they must keep the concern for EU´s cohesion as a priority. The third message is about power and leverage. Europe can only be able to respond to China’s domineering approach if its Member States act together. The opposite, to believe they can be treated by China on an equal footing is either political naïveté or a manifestation of deceitful policies.

The four-sided summit has also helped to prepare for the next high-level meeting between the EU and China that will take place on 9 April.

Brexit, stage two. Next, please!

Theresa May lost the vote again, for a second time. And I would add, we, the Europeans, have also been defeated. It is in our common interest, for the British side and our own, in the EU, to have a properly organised exit and a transition period that is as smooth as possible. Anything else, specially a no-deal situation, would be a major shock. It would have an extremely negative impact on both economies and would bring serious disruptions to a relationship that has many dimensions and is very deep.

I am sure that the message that will come out of tomorrow’s vote at Westminster will be very clear. No deal is not a solution, that will be the outcome of the vote. Brexit, yes, but with an agreement, that will certainly be the Parliamentarians decision.

It will become pressing clear in the next weeks that there is a possible deal on the table. That’s the one that failed to pass today and had already been voted against two months ago. My guess, as a possible way out, is that Theresa May and the Europeans leaders will massage the draft deal once more and add a few lines to an extra new document. Then, Theresa May will bring it back to Westminster for a third round of votes. And, to our surprise, the House will go for it. 

What I am suggesting is an adaptation of the rule of three, the famous belief that a trio of events is more humorous, satisfying, or effective than just two.

These are very new times, a unique moment in the European history, and we can expect the implausible. 

Theresa May and her negative delaying tactics

As I listened this afternoon to Theresa May’s statement at Westminster – and to the following parliamentary debate – I could only conclude that the Prime Minister has no concrete alternative plan to the existing draft Brexit Deal.

Moreover, she is not credible when she sustains that “the talks are at a crucial state”. There are no real talks taking place. And there is no plan to that in the days to come.

The Prime Minister is just trying to gain time. Not that she expects a miracle to happen in the next couple of weeks. No. Her hope is that in the end the British Parliament will approve the Deal, with some cosmetics added to it, but basically the same document that she has agreed with the EU last November.

To believe in an approval because the MPs will have their backs against the wall is a very risky bet. Also, it’s distinctly unwise. In the end, it might bring all of us closer to a No Deal Brexit. Such possible outcome would have deeply negative consequences both to the UK and the EU. Only open fools, like David Davis, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, can believe that a No Deal situation is a good option for the UK.

It’s time to bring the Prime Minister back to earth and stop the delaying tactics.

As a footnote, it’s quite shocking to see that idiotic belief about the positives of a No Deal being militantly supported by some mainstream British media. For instance, by The Telegraph, the well-known right-wing daily newspaper. This media behaviour is clearly the result of a mixture of chauvinist madness with commercial opportunism – trying to sell newsprint paper to the retrograde Conservatives that constitute a good share of the British market. It’s abundantly irresponsible.

Let's be positive and wise

Today's world in Brussels should be "restrain". This is a time that requires moderation, tact, discretion, prudence, circumspection, you call it whatever you deem more appropriate. I prefer “restrain”.

And I would add to it that this is no time to irritate the side that might seem very confused. It’s actually the moment to be warm about the future, because the future can only be about cooperation and mutual interests.

After the Brexit vote

After the Westminster vote on the Brexit Deal, and its most shocking result, the question that is in all minds is very clear: what’s next? Obvious interrogation, that’s true, but the answer is far from being clear. But the British political class must find an answer to it. For that, they must immediately take the initiative of stopping the Brexit time glass. It’s impossible to keep the current deadline of 29 March. It’s also completely unwise. An extension is required. And that extension is possible, at least up to the opening of the new European Parliament in July 2019.

It’s on the interest of both sides – the British and the EU – to reach an agreement. That’s now the position of many at Westminster. But there are some in that Parliament and above all in the popular media that advocate a No Deal. That is absolute madness. They can’t be serious when they defend that. They are either politically blind or foolish.

On the EU side, it is critical to avoid any kind of statement that would complicate things. Leaders need to show they are patient people and balanced as well. Silence is the best option. When silence is not possible, then the EU leaders should just state they are open to look at any meaningful proposal coming from London.

Westminster is making it impossible

At this stage, the best option for all of us in the European neighbourhood – UK and EU – would be to have the Withdrawal Agreement approved by the British parliament. That would be the most reasonable way forward, this late in the process. Both sides need a Brexit arrangement that would bring clarity and could ensure a good degree of continuity to a very close relationship.

Unfortunately, Westminster seems determined to vote down the deal. That will complicate further a political situation that is already very delicate. The UK population deserves better. And they are also tired of the discussions about the Brexit. But the politicians in Parliament are too divided. Moreover, many of them are just guided by personal reasons and by an idea of Britain that does not tally with the international affairs of today.  

The event of the year: Brexit

From a European perspective, Brexit is the leading issue of 2018. At least for many EU leaders and British politicians that spent a great deal of the year discussing the matter. It has also been the key theme for people who comment on EU affairs. Including for myself, as it was recurrent subject in my weekly radio programmes.

It is not yet clear, as the old year comes to its conclusion, what will be the final act of such a political drama. Is it to end as a Shakespearean tragedy? Or, are we going to watch a final scene inspired by Mr Bean’s approach to film-making?

It’s quite interesting to end the year with such a dilemma in the air. But the matter is extremely serious, and it will dominate a good chunk of the coming year’s political agenda. Clarity should therefore be the word to wish for the New Year. But, like so many wishes, this one might also end up unfulfilled.