@F.Spaak(The Netherlands): Why not democratically elect the president was a question asked in the above replies. This would give the President an own mandate above or alike the democratically and sovereign chosen head of states and governments. That would create a kind of disequality in an intergovernmental forum where equality, unanimity and sovereignty are the foremost principles. Furthermore it would be a hell of a job to organise fair Europe-wide elections for this post only. How should one understand the will of the voters, which subjects shall be under discussion in the campaign, Is the German vote equal to those of a Maltese or Cypriotic subject etc. etc.

“Is the German vote equal to those of a Maltese or Cypriotic subject”

@F.Spaak

Your words illustrate perfectly the almost robotic acceptance of a “Europe of Nations” geo-political orthodoxy amongst the European public!

That’s also precisely why a pan-EU electoral platform (for any post of political significance) would signal a revolutionary leap forward into an entirely different kind of political environment. It would no longer be a question of how Germans or Swedes or Brits or Spaniards, et al as distinct audiences because a vote to elect a representative to act on behalf of the entire European electorate would begin to initiate a sense of European political identity, for example an elected European Council President would establish a sense of direct connection between those who voted for him/her (particularly, given the fact that it is a single post, if a preferential [1,2,3,4,5] voting system was utilised) and the political profile of the post holder.

Currently, political discourse is automatically focussed through the lens of individual member state public viewpoints; the merits of individual candidates are, for example, debated in direct proportion to their nationality; Balkenende’s candidacy receives widespread media coverage in Nederland but virtually none in the UK and vice versa for Tony Blair.

Unless and until this national stranglehold on political debate is breached, Europe, as a distinct entity in its own right, can never emerge from the shadow cast by respective National (Member State) discourses.

Your response symbolises this paradox – that’s exactly why I highlighted the absence of democratic credentials attached to the post of European Council President – we have to begin somewhere on the long and winding road to a phenomenon called “A European Demos!”

Its perfectly enough when you have the two legislative chambers, one representing the people, the other the member states.

The Commission President should be the head of the executive, as he is dependent on both chambers of legislative, ie memberstates and EP. Improving the democratic legitamecy could be achieved already by giving the EP more powers than it has under Nice and also than under Lisbon.

It seems to me that any move towards direct election to any of the senior positions may have to wait a decade or so. The changes wrought by the Lisbon Treaty will take that long to bed down.

There should be a High Representative for Social Europe. Alongside the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security and President of the European Parliament, the five senior figures of the EU would provide balence and act as an inner cabinet.

An elected President would dominate Europe’s institutions and the role would subsume all others. Better to keep the principle of First Among Equals.

I still believe that by extending the vote to all elected national MPs would anchor legitimacy. Perhaps all senior positions could be chosen such a way. Thereby every European citizen has a say via their individual MP.

All votes would be equal because the European Council uses a weighted voting system for its decisions and Lisbon introduces new guidelines.

Positions would change dependent on the results of European Parliamentary Elections.

Anyway, it sounds principally possible. A directly elected President would wield however an incredibly larger legitimation and in his function of president of the council may yield a lot more power due to this legitimation.

This alone makes me pretty sure that there is little chance that the member states would agree to this, not on short term at least.

Apart from it, giving so much legitimation to the President would seriously destabilize the power balance towards the Commission. Personally I’d rather improve the democratic legitimation of the Commission than turning the head of a legislative chamber into some sort of uber executive, elected or not.

Why not democratically elect the president was a question asked in the above replies. This would give the President an own mandate above or alike the democratically and sovereign chosen head of states and governments. That would create a kind of disequality in an intergovernmental forum where equality, unanimity and sovereignty are the foremost principles. Furthermore it would be a hell of a job to organise fair Europe-wide elections for this post only. How should one understand the will of the voters, which subjects shall be under discussion in the campaign, Is the German vote equal to those of a Maltese or Cypriotic subject etc. etc.

Remember when Obama went to Prague and did a press conference with “europe”, it was barosso, the technocrat from Czech Republic, and Reinfeldt. Now their will be a 4th to meet him!