This appointment may serve to cripple the role before it has started to walk. A mere ‘convener’ in conjunction with D’Alema (the man with iron moustache) would serve to undermine the whole purpose of the Lisbon Treaty in external affairs: namely the more coherent projection of EU positions and policies. Candidates such as Herman Van Rompuy (age 62) with little experience of global affairs are a cop-out. What is the point of forcing the Lisbon Treaty through if you then appoint a lowest common denominator figure?

In relation to Hague, I can only confess my surprise at your reading of his article as EU positive. The undertones of the piece is to constrain the future projection of EU interests. The nonsense he propogates vis a vis Blair’s leadership skewing the,”distribution of power between the EU’s institutions and the member states” can be dealt with by asking: as opposed to what? It is not like we have or will ever have a stable distribution of power/relationship between institutions and member states. The article concentration on bussiness and trade interests only reveals Hague’s wish for the EU to be little more than a trading arena.

It comes down to a simple question: do you want the EU to punch below its weight forever, or in a world where the EU’s power is diminshing do want to see a more enhanced projection of EU interests/power?

And I agree with his assessment of a Blair appointment. The role is not about “figureheads”, nor about “strong leaders”. It is more about a “convener”: someone who can help people of opposing views to arrive at an acceptable consensus. No real staff support is proposed for the President’s post. The really powerful position – as the Lisbon Treaty explains – is that of High Representative (and Deputy Commission President), complete with substantial supporting staff, such as diplomats, etc.

Someone other than Blair, someone less “low-key” and less likely to arouse strong, competitive feelings, please.