Comments on: Where is the Aristo-Cat (yet again)?

By: lino

lino — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:57:07 +0000

Always nice to read you Hugh, especially as I see we share common cinematographic tastes! On constraining myself: how do you think i turned blue?
I appreciate your eternal optimistic view and wish I could share it, on this one….

By: HughBS

HughBS — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:30:08 +0000

Sorry to hear you constrained yourself Lino: you rhinoceroses need to be careful…hope you’re better now.

I imagine if a foreign policy issue dominated the summit (not the case yesterday) the HR would be more visible.

What is perhaps more worrying is whether another quotation from the film, “Ladies don’t start fights, but they can finish them!”, will ever be apt to describe the HR in action. I fear though that political ennobling does not change the colour of a person’s blood.

By: lino

lino — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:51:15 +0000

I am not blaming her specifically for this but rather blaming the whole choreography orchestrated over the last months that is thoroughly disappointing, and which she seems to accept dutifully. I saw more of Solana in the past than I have done of Ashton so far, and feel this is a deliberate and worrying strategy.

By: Julien Frisch

Julien Frisch — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:40:58 +0000

I actually think that the Treaty is drafted in a way that the legal and diplomatic services understand quite well who will stand in the light at what time, it’s just not clear for those of us who did not participated in the behind-closed-doors bargaining.

In other words: They who made the final version(s) of the Treaties didn’t want(ed) Ashton to stand in the camera lights. I don’t think she is to blame (this time).

By: lino

lino — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:34:21 +0000

Hi Julien

Thorough as always, a quality I do not claim to share. I believe the Treaty is drafted in such a manner that it leaves quite some leeway when it comes to its interpretation. The “part of the Council” Vs “take part in the work” argument looks like semantics to me and do not refrain Ashton from being present (they don’t mandate it either, I fully agree there). I consider that occasion after occasion, she shines by her absence and regret it.
L

By: Julien Frisch

Julien Frisch — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:30:37 +0000

Lino, I think you should have quoted the full article 15 (2) of the Treaty on European Union:

“The European Council shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, together with its President and the President of the Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall take part in its work.”

According to that article, the President of the European Council and the President of the Commission are both part of the European Council, while Ashton just takes part in the work, which means she is no part of the European Council. So Barroso and van Rompuy are on equal footing when it comes to European Council meetings while Ashton is legally and diplomatically below that level.

So it seems to me that, diplomatically, somebody who is just there to work is not there to represent anything, and while Barroso and van Rompuy are both kind of neutral members of the Council (since they have no vote) able to present results for the outside world.