The elected President of Europe will also generate more friction than collaboration. The current system of a rotating Presidency that changes every six months and designates the head of government as the President of Europe has a simple fairness about it: Every state has an opportunity to participate; the rotation is based on alphabetical order, so there is no small states versus large states rivalry involved; and it gives each state the opportunity to receive credit for leading the EU at a particular time. It is often revealed that particular items are on the agenda of particular inter-governmental conferences purely to permit a particular state to claim credit that the matter was solved during its term as EU President or to prevent the next state in the rotation queue from receiving that credit. Although an elected President of Europe would solve this inter-state rivalry, issues of rank would emerge: The elected President of Europe would be the head of a government of sorts but not a head of state. Therefore the ultimate authority would remain with the heads of the member states as participants in a federalized European system, and the President of Europe would be at the perpetual mercy of the heads of the member state governments. Of course arguably by consenting to participate in a federalized Europe, the EU would then constitute a state, and the situation would be precisely the reverse with the President of Europe holding sway over the state heads in the same way the US President wields power over and beyond the state governors. If the proposed system is ever established, no matter what form it takes, it will incur the angst of a sizeable minority.
Therefore it will be impossible for Europe to sell itself to the masses until the EU has a clearer concept of what it wants to sell. Until the dithering ends, the sales pitch and the higher voter turnouts cannot begin.
Go To Page: 1 2
