My full answers to some questions from a French newspaper for an article due to appear tomorrow, as France’s time at the EU helm draws to a close.

(And no, I never heard another word about the “bloggers panel” that the French Ambassador’s press office approached me about back in the summer, in case you were wondering. Such a panel would, however, be a very good idea for the EU – its web presence and PR strategy remains truly dire… They could learn a thing or two from the likes of us. My consultancy rate is a very reasonable £50 an hour.)

What is your general feeling towards the French presidency of the EU?

To be honest, bar Sarkozy making a big deal about trying (and pretty much failing) to sort out the Georgia crisis back in the summer, I’ve hardly noticed it. Whatever plans France may have had before taking over the presidency (and those were never exactly clear), Georgia and the credit crisis seem to have fairly effectively knocked them off the agenda. As we come to its close, the EU seems no nearer to finding any solutions to the problems we had before the French presidency, and with the ongoing fall-out from the Georgia crisis and the credit crunch now has even more things to worry about than it did before. Not France’s fault, necessarily, but this has been another six months of stagnation.

Still, that’s better than the UK managed during its presidency back in 2005, when Tony Blair seemed to vanish into thin air for six months. At least Sarkozy seemed keen to adopt the EU mantle and has been fairly visible in the European media. But that may just be thanks to his wife…

Do you think Nicolas Sarkozy coped with the crises that struck Europe (Irish refusal to the Lisbon treaty, economical crisis, Georgian crisis)?

He did as well as could be expected – which is not very.

I put a fair bit of blame on Bernard Kouchner for the Irish No in the first place – his comments about how the Irish owed the EU a Yes after all the EU help Ireland has received were widely reported, widely ridiculed (even if he may have had a point), and caused a lot of anger. Now that it looks like Ireland is going to be made to vote again – with a few meaningless concessions and guarantees that are unlikely to do anything to change anyone’s mind – it could well be this French Presidency that ends up getting the blame for Lisbon’s failure, having not really done much to convince anyone that the treaty is a genuinely good thing for Ireland or for Europe as a whole. But then again, the Irish referendum result is something that should be left to Ireland to work out – for Sarkozy or other EU bigwigs to meddle too much is likely to do more harm to the Yes camp’s cause than good.

On Georgia, Sarkozy tried his best, and was fairly high-profile in his various attempts to get an agreement over a ceasefire. But in the end Russia pulled out in her own time having utterly ignored EU concerns, and Sarkozy also failed to get the US behind EU efforts at peacemaking. Hell, not even the whole of the EU was behind Sarkozy on this one, with various national politicians using the crisis as an excuse to prove their international status (such as the UK’s still fairly inexperienced Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Leader of the Opposition David Cameron, both of whom flew out (independently) to be photographed playing at international statesman), while others were undermining Sarkozy thanks to either their dependence on Russian energy (Germany backing Moscow and talking down Georgia’s NATO chances) or old Cold War animosities (Poland in particular making a bid thing of standing up to Russia by signing up to the controversial US missile defence shield a few days after the invasion). As an example of a united EU foreign policy, the Georgia crisis was yet another failure.

On the credit crisis, as far as I can tell the EU seems to have been following Gordon Brown’s lead more than Sarkozy’s. And it’s still far too early to tell if the measures taken are going to have the desired effect in any case.

Which decision satisfied you the most ? Which disappointed you the most?

The attempt to play mediator over Georgia was good, even if the end result was a failure. Nice to see someone try to use the EU presidency in an external context for a change – too often EU presidencies are inward-looking.

As for disappointment, it’s a definite shame that no attempts at genuine reform were even hinted at. No efforts to increase the transparency of the Council, no moves towards the long-overdue reform of the CAP or CFP. And then there’s the unsurprising disappointment that the efforts to ratify the Lisbon Treaty are ongoing despite the Irish No, and that no real effort has been made to understand just why the electorates of three very different EU member states have all seen fit to reject the contitution/Lisbon. Where are the attempts to find out what the people of Europe think about the direction in which the EU seems to be heading? Until we get some sign that the views of the people are valued, the stalemate that the EU’s been stuck in since the failed Treaty of Nice way back in 2000 is only going to continue.

Following the progress made on Common Agricultural Policy reform the other day (and it was progress, even if not as much as many would have liked), there remains much confusion. As CAP Health Check asks, who voted for what?

The same (invaluable) blog has all kinds of details on the fall-out from the deal – a deal in which, once again, France appears to have acted the petulant child and, from pure selfishness, scuppered reforms that the EU sorely needs. Because it wouldn’t be fair for France to get any less than 20% of the single largest chunk of the EU budget, would it?

And so, once again, a much-needed serious overhaul of one of the fundamental aspects of the modern EU is put off for a few more years. Instead we get yet another compromise that pleases no one. Just as with the last attempt to reform the CAP back in 2003. Just as with the Constitution. Just as with the Treaty of Nice.

Am I a cynic to think that the reason the big decisions keep being put off by a few years every time (the next attempt to reform the CAP will come in 2013) is that our dear politicians are aware of their short terms of office, and are hoping that come the next round of negotiations it’ll be somebody else’s problem?

Today marks the start of the French presidency of the EU. Sarkozy’s task as president? To guide the union from the post-Irish referendum confusion into a fresh new dawn of harmony and mutual appreciation, to an EU both truly united and sure of its purpose.

Yes, the Polish president may have refused to ratify Lisbon as well, but he’s a homophobic right-wing nutter, everyone knows that. We’ll pretend that hasn’t happened, just as we’ll pretend the Irish no vote hasn’t happened. And worst case scenario we’ll put our fingers in our ears, go “la la la la la!” whenever anyone else speaks, and then act as if we’re all singing from the same hymnsheet when we aren’t even singing from the same hymnbook. It’ll all work out fine in the end.

To wit, a case in point, from the reception the French Ambassador to the Court of St James (aka to the UK, for those not au fait with outmoded chivalry), held at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London the Saturday before last to mark the start of the French EU presidency (to which I was kindly invited):

The French Ambassador speaks, listing France’s three priorities for her presidency of the EU as:

1) Culture
2) Diversity
3) The people of Europe

Up next, a representative of the British government (whose name I didn’t catch and whom I didn’t recognise), listing what the UK thinks are the three French priorities:

1) Energy and energy security
2) Climate change
3) Migration

Followed, of course, by much shaking of hands, smiling, and mutterings about how great it was that everyone was in agreement. No mention of France focussing on more abstract concepts (in an effort to reunite the EU around core shared ideals, so entirely understandable) while the UK focusses on practicalities. No acknowledgement of the complete lack of anything in the way of similarity in what the two representatives have just stated as being the key priorities. Just carrying on regardless like a couple of deaf old ladies over tea and biscuits.

“I said let’s prioritise Climate change, Ivy.”

“Culture and diversity, you say? Why Ethel, what a lovely idea! How about doing something to get the people of Europe on board while we’re at it?”

“You’re entirely right – we really should do something about all those migrants crossing the borders.”

At this rate we’re never going to get anywhere.

The Brown/Sarko press conference following the latter’s state visit to the UK is going on as I type. There’s been a lot of “one night stand” rhetoric in response to a question from the BBC’s Nick Robinson (along the lines of Sarkozy being charming and saying all the right things, but will he still mean them tomorrow?) – providing both politicians a chance to try for some of that strange blandness that passes for humour in the world of politics. “We’ve gone beyond the one night and are now sharing breakfast the next morning”, says Sarko. (Oh, my aching sides…)

However, the real love-in was rather more brutal, as Sarkozy (doubtless inadvertently) raised the Lisbon Treaty unprompted, followed by – as related by the BBC’s interpreter:

Thanks to [Gordon Brown] I hope Europe will be able to start moving ahead

Nope, I didn’t manage to jot down the whole sentence, but Sarko seemed to be suggesting that Gordon’s done something pretty major to ensure that the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. Pretty major like following Sarko’s lead and refusing to hold a referendum? Or was there some other agreement made behind the closed doors of the Council? Whatever he meant, this is unlikely to win Gordon much favour from the British public. A British Prime Minister actively engaging with the EU? Shocking!

Apologies for lack of posting lately, by the by – I would offer an excuse, but there isn’t one. I simply wasn’t in the mood.

Oh, and while I’m at it – shame! The retirement of Jens-Peter Bonde as an MEP is a bad thing for the European Parliament and a bad thing for the EU, no matter how much some may wish to paint him as a raving eurosceptic. Long one of the most vocal and intelligent eurosceptics on the continent, his drive for meaningful, democratic reform of the EU should be appleuded by all and sundry. (I also managed to have a quick chat with him while I was in Brussels for openDemocracy, and he seemed like a very nice chap – albeit a rather intense one.)

For a largely foreign policy-focussed blog, Gordon Brown’s offered little of any interest since becoming Prime Minister. He simply doesn’t seem to have much interest in the rest of the world, happily ignoring both the EU and the US for weeks on end, and seemingly making little effort to make friends on the international stage.

Sod his speech the other day. It struck me as too full of platitudes to be of any use (“the first duty of government [is] the protection of the British national interest”, “global challenges need global solutions” etc.), with all kinds of oddness piled on top:

“I want to play my part in helping the European Union move away from its past preoccupation with inward looking institutional reform and I will work with others to propose a comprehensive agenda for a Global Europe – a Europe that is outward looking, open, internationalist, able to effectively respond both through internal reform and external action to the economic, security and environmental imperatives of globalisation.”

Does Brown not get that further institutional reform of the EU – including reforms beyond the vague compromises of the reform treaty – is vital for it to continue to function, or is he simply hoping to avoid any more of it, and thus further irritating spats about referenda?

Either way, it matters not a jot – because Gordon Brown is far too weak to have any significant impact on European (let alone global) relations at the moment. It looks like he’s already buggered his chances of getting in with Bush, and with the race to succeed old George still too close to call, he’s got no idea which candidates to start sucking up to for the post-November 2008 period, by which time Brown will, in any case, be gearing up for an election of his own.

Having failed to call an election this autumn, Brown finds himself with two years to make an impact on the international scene at the very worst time, with the US presidency in transition – and, more importantly, an insanely secure and charismatic internationalist French president charging around making friends with everyone. Barely at the start of his first term as president, still hugely popular, with a big parliamentary majority to back him up – he’s secure, will be around for a long time, and seems to have a knack for becoming best buddies with whichever world leader he happens to be with at the time.

With Angela Merkel’s coalition on the verge of collapse in Germany, Prodi again embroiled in the type of controversy that can always end the inevitably short-lived governments of Italy, and Zapatero looking weak in Spain after this year’s tight local elections (and a general election due next year), and Brown rocking backwards and forwards singing to himself with his eyes closed and fingers in his ears whenever anyone mentions the EU, it is again to France – Sarkozy – that Europe must look for leadership.

So, ignore Gordon Brown’s speech, and instead look to Sarkozy’s speech at the European Parliament the other day and speech to the US Congress a week or so ago if you want to get an idea of where foreign policy is really going to be focussed.

Brown can ramble on about Iran as much as he likes, but it’s what happens in Europe, not the middle east, that will have the most impact on Britain in the next few years – if he’s serious about protecting the British national interest (whatever that may be…), he’d do well to get in with Sarkozy sharpish to head off any problematic reforms and foreign policy objectives before France manages to get them so secure on the agenda that they’re impossible to remove. Making friends with Sarkozy is also essential to start shaping the inevitable additional changes within the EU before they really start to form, in the wake of the reform treaty’s bad compromises. All Brown’s done so far is bury his head in the sand and hope all the various EU-related problems somehow go away.

But, of course, what everyone’s really ignoring – and Sarkozy is, at least publicly, as guilty of this as anyone – is Russia. Sod the middle east, sod institutional reform, sod further expansion and sod terrorism – Russia is Europe’s single biggest problem. Be it cyber-warfare against Estonia, cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine, killing people on the streets of London, or threatening countries willing to do a deal with the US on missile defence, Russia is throwing its weight around big style – and something needs to be done to calm the bear.

Sarkozy is in a very good position to do this – capitalising on his nascent friendship with Putin (who is bound to maintain influence even after the presidential elections in the spring) as well as the long friendship between France and Russia. Brown’s government, meanwhile, has merely escalated the post-Litvinenko tensions by chucking out diplomats and rattling sabres – which helps precisely no one, and has got us precisely nowhere.

If one thing is a given, it’s that keeping Russia on board is vital not just for Europe’s energy future but also for the stability of the countries on the European fringe (both new EU member states and those that may become such in a few years). With energy supplies likely to become ever more of a central issue over the next few years as the middle east remains unstable, Russia’s dominance of the Asian oil and gas fields, and ability to control pretty much all supply lines in to Europe from the east (see map – PDF), means that Moscow/Putin has more ability to influence Europe than pretty much anyone else. Until Turkey and Georgia are sufficiently stabilised and, ideally, brought in to the EU (allowing an alternate route, via the Caspian Sea, for the oil and gas of Central Asia without having to pass through Russia or the middle east at all), maintaining friendly relations with Russia is vital.

So, expect more on Sarkozy here over the next few months – as well as rather more on Russia-EU relations in the run-up to the Presidential elections in March, and the Duma elections on 2nd December. Sarkozy is likely to dominate the EU for at least another four years, and Russia’s impact is only going to increase as oil and gas supplies dwindle – it would be foolish for anyone trying to take the broad view of EU affairs to ignore this any longer.

What with the ongoing spat with Russia (hyped out of all proportion, I reckon, and hope I’m not proved wrong), the fact that our dear new Prime Minister has made his first overseas jaunt while in office seems to have been largely forgotten. The fact that Brown managed a solid three weeks in the UK before nipping off abroad – approximately 400% longer than Tony Blair ever managed during his ten years in office* – has likewise received little comment. (Blair’s first overseas visit, by the way, was to the US, which could be significant…)

But why, with so much to do in Europe, Germany? Why suck up to Angela Merkel, with her relatively unstable coalition and two weeks after she passed the EU presidency on to Portugal? Why not follow the EU presidency itself? Why not head to Brussels and meet Commission head Barroso? Why not try to form a good relationship with Europe’s most secure and powerful politician, Nicholas Sarkozy (who he’s due to meet on Friday)? Why not Sarkozy and Merkel at the same time, in an EU big three spitroast?
Continue Reading

Note to the internet:

Just because I haven’t posted much of late doesn’t give you permission to bombard my site with comment spam, you bastard.

Note to regular readers (if I’ve got any left after so few posts):

Sorry, I’ve been a bit busy in the real world of late. Plus utterly uninspired by anything that’s been going on either in Britain or Europe – when I’ve had the time to check out the news, at any rate.

Still, Sarkozy’s been getting up to some interesting stuff – if you want to get up to speed, try a combination of this overview from the Economist’s Europe blog (plus this follow-up), Politique (formerly French Election 2007), France Politic (formerly France Decides 2007), and the English-language version of Le Figaro. If you can read French, the best places to start exploring the (exceedingly healthy) world of French political blogs are probably des Blogs Francophones combined with Versac‘s blogroll, and a handy thematic breakdown of what the French press is saying can be found at News Blogs.

Right, now I’m off to read Herodotus before getting on with some work – but am currently hugely frustrated with the Aubrey De Selincourt Penguin Classics translation (following the 1970s clean-up). It’s AWFUL. Anyone want to recommend a better one? Ideally comprehensively annotated, but the most important thing is simply for it to be readable…

Since the initial expansion to 25 member states back in 2004, the future of the EU has been wildly uncertain. The constitution was supposed to sort everything out but, as we all know, that little project has failed dismally. For the last three years, the European Union has been in a state of growing stagnation, with no obvious way out thanks to the various petty spats and disagreements.

In Britain – rarely a country to seek active engagement in EU politics – Blair’s been on his way out for what seems like forever. Everyone’s known that Gordon Brown was likely to succeed even before Labour failed to find a viaible candidate to oppose him. But with the UK economy beginning to show signs of faltering and discontent with the government steadily rising, few would be keen to put too much money on Brown being returned with a working majority at the next general election, now most likely in 2009. Neither Brown nor opposition leader David Cameron, in any case, are likely to focus too much on the European Union in the next few years, as the issue is simply far too contentious – and with a tight election on the cards, neither can risk alienating the electorate by engaging too closely with Brussels. Expect no EU leadership from the UK.

In Germany, despite her best efforts during her current EU presidency, Angela Merkel has made little headway in pushing through EU reform, and is also still in the tricky position of ruling via a fragile coalition that could fracture in a moment, given the right point of contention. With Poland and – especially – Russia to worry about to the east, Germany is in any case too threatened by immediate problems to really care too much about theoretical long-term development.

In Italy, as always in that perennially unstable country, the government is still on the brink of collapse. Romano Prodi may be far and away the most EU-experienced national leader, but his domestic troubles mean that no one in the wider EU can rely on him to be in office in six months, let alone the few years it will doubtless take to push through major EU reforms.

Poland, the only new member state with a large enough EU vote to be a serious contender in shaping the future of EU reform, is currently led by a pair of twin maniacs set on purging their country of anyone they dislike – be it suspected former communists or homosexuals. With ever increasing lurches towards hard right authoritarianism, Poland has firmly positioned itself as the black sheep of the European Union – largely ignored with embarrassment, the rest of the time more or less gently being chastised by the other member states. The KaczyÅ„ski twins (one as President, one as Prime Minister) have only been in power for a year and a bit, and are likely to stick around for a while, but with a new model Polish nationalism increasingly at the heart of their politics, constructive engagement with the EU is highly unlikely to be on their agenda any time soon.

In Spain, meanwhile, the only other EU country even close to being large enough to exert any influence, Zapatero’s socialist government has increasingly been coming into conflict with the right – and now faces the threat of fresh ETA attacks, following the Basque terrorist group’s decision to drop their ceasefire last week. Having allowed the naturalisation of thousands of illegal immigrants – without consultation with the rest of the EU – Zapatero is also not flavour of the week in Brussels, and the recent elections of the right-wing and more pro-American Sarkzozy in France and Merkel in Germany have destroyed his previous European strategy of forming a bloc with those two countries. While friendly with Prodi (for as long as he’ll be around), Zapatero’s anti-US and pro-EU constitution rhetoric ensures he’s unlikely to find an ally in Gordon Brown, and the brief period where it looked like Spain may have some influence over the future of the EU seems to have come to an end.

So who does that leave? Surprise surprise – the country that ALWAYS seems to shape the future of the EU… France.

Six months ago, Sarkozy’s succession was highly doubtful. Chirac seemed opposed to him, Royal looked to be gaining popularity, and there was that whole potential scandal over the Clearstream affiar lurking in the background which could easily have ended his hopes of nomination, let alone election.

Now, however, Sarkozy seems to have the most secure political position of any leader of the major European powers. By all accounts, the French parliamentary elections are going to end up a landslide for the UMP – the first time in 30 years that an sitting French government has been returned with a majority.

On the domestic front, this gives Sarkozy carte blanche to put in place pretty much any reforms he likes – be it increasing the 35 hour working week, cutting immigration, cutting taxes, reducing the civil service, or reordering the criminal justice system.

But from the European Union perspective, this double endorsement of the Sarkozy approach likewise gives him a pretty much indisputable right to tell Brussels that what he says goes. Having rejected the EU constitution, French voters have now endorsed a president and a party which proposes a “mini treaty” approach, a president who has publicly declared the existing constitution “dead”. With Sarkozy now doubly endorsed, the stake has been driven well and truly through the constitution’s heart.

French opinion can (perhaps sadly) never be ignored when it comes to reforming the EU – a fact that Romano Prodi noted this time last year when he stated that any revision of the current plans could not possibly take place until after the French elections. Notably, since Sarkozy’s election, the formerly pro-constitution Prodi has begun to back the mini-treaty idea, and has even hinted at a multi-tier Europe. Surely even the nuttily pro-constitution Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who’s been performing frantic constitutional CPR for the last couple of years, can’t try and keep the thing alive now?

What this all means, therefore, is that Sarkozy is pretty much going to be able to dictate terms to Brussels. He will get his mini-treaty – at least in some shape or other. Gordon Brown is likely to back the idea, if not the detail. So is Prodi. So will – most likely – the Netherlands, Denmark and the Czech Republic, just to name a few off the top of my head.

And so we’re about to enter into another period of delaying tactics and discussions of a new direction. Despite Merkel’s hopes of sorting out the detail this summer, the mini-treaty is unlikely to be finalised until at least this time next year – most likely some time after July 2008, when France (conveniently enough) takes over the EU presidency.

That will then give Sarkozy another four years in office to sort out the longer-term fix for the EU that is increasingly desperately needed. Hell, if he gets close to the mini-treaty he wants, he may even go one step further and try his hand at broader diplomacy, and try to reignite the old special relationship between France and Russia with Putin’s successor, scheduled to take over in March 2008. So far, the signs are good, Sarkozy offering himself as mediator, and trying to position himself firmly as an unbiased party in the US / Russia missile bases dispute. Hell, he’s even been getting drunk with Putin – surely a good sign?

Possibly, just possibly, Sarkozy could be the answer to the EU’s prayers. A strong, secure leader of one of the most influential EU member states, with a cabinet that shows he’s willing to compromise and work on bipartisan terms despite his large majority, who’s regarded as both pro-US and rationally pro-EU, who looks to be cultivating friendship with Russia, and whose very first act on becoming president was to jet off to discuss the Union’s future.

I never would have thought I’d be saying this six months ago, but Sarkozy is by far our best hope for a workable European Union. Even more shockingly, I’m coming to respect this guy quite a bit.

Les Fatales Picards are a work of absolute genius. That bald guy – perfect! Sadly no cheerleaders during the live finals, but still. Fantastic stuff – they’ve single-handedly revived my interest in pop music:

Update: Actually, sod that – maybe Ukraine… Genius also (though in a rather more contrived way, for which I’ll deduct points – France still my favourites…):

Update 2: But more importantly, why the hell is the German entry all about ruling the world? Should we be getting nervous? (And unless my ears deceived me, in their appeal for votes they said something along the lines of “we conquered you…” Erm…)

Update 3: The German entry’s lyrics. It IS all about ruling the world! Or maybe Angela Merkel. I’m not sure any more…

At one end of Europe, the invective is beginning to rise again in the French elections, as today is the day third-placed centrist Francois Bayrou is expected to announce who – if anyone – he’s going to throw his support behind.

Bayrou’s party may largely consist of people who have drifted to the centre from the right, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he (or they) will lump in with Sarkozy – because the frontrunner from the first round is doing anything but embrace Bayrou’s multi-partisan spirit of co-operation, his team telling the Financial Times that he’s thinking of splitting his own party in two to capitalise as much as possible on the two factions – Gaullists/rightwingers and centrists. Last night, Sarkozy even attacked the very basis of Bayrou’s inclusive approach to French politics, announcing in a speech that

“I will not seek to build artificial coalitions… I will not negotiate any compromise that would run contrary to my convictions and the commitments I have taken and for which 11m French had confidence in me in the first round.”

Me Sarkozy! Me strong leader! Sarkozy CRUSH! (etc.)

Royal, meanwhile has taken a very different approach – softly, softly, touchy-feely, calling for an open and formal alliance to build a strong “Stop Sarko” cross-party group.

But despite this, the “kingmaker” title bestowed on Bayrou by some pundits after Sunday’s first round results came through is looking increasingly increasingly unlikely to be born out by events.

Sarkozy’s all but publicly telling the centrist that he can go screw himself shows there is much doubt as to whether Bayrou really did achieve something new but, more importantly, the right-winger also has a point about the coalition that Bayrou had managed to build – it WAS artificial, inasmuch as it was based around the vague hope that party politics could be jettisoned for a change, and it centred almost entirely on the figurehead leader that had formed it. Now that the figurehead no longer has a chance of getting elected, the most likely outcome is that Bayrou’s coalition will splinter, and that he will have little control over how his erstwhile supporters vote next.

The French elections are, in other words, still all up in the air. Although judging from Sarkozy’ recent rhetoric, the best bet for Royal is to allow him to dominate the airwaves with his self-important rhetoric, and hope that the French public get utterly sick of his overinflated ego by the time of the next vote in a week and a half… (See also OpenDemocracy, the Washington Post, the Economist and Charles Bremner on the struggle to win over Bayrou’s supporters.)

—

Then, over on the other side of the continent, Romania has opted for a nation-wide referendum to decide whether to chuck out their president, following his recent suspension for violating the constitution. (*cough* Tony Blair *cough* Jacques Chirac *cough* pretty much any political leader you don’t like who’s done some dodgy stuff *cough*) Kosmopolit has a handy roundup of what’s going on and reactions – note particularly Jon Worth on the place (or lack thereof) of the EU in this rapidly escalating little domestic crisis.

Is up now at Siberian Light (ta Andy!) – loads of good stuff, from Moldovan web awards (yes, really) to the French elections.

Speaking of which, it’s the long-expected Sarko/Sego runoff (my prediction of an additional last-minute surge for Bayrou proving, one again, that political predictions are for poltroons). What happens next? Yet more invective and yet more guesswork, as the two candidates are bang on 50/50 in the polls at present, and the remaining votes are likewise split pretty evenly between left and right.

In other words, the second round of 6th May could go either way – and the next couple of weeks should prove very interesting indeed, not least the impact that Bayrou and his centrist supporters might have. His endorsement could, potentially, shift the entire thing. Or not. Because no one really knows what the hell’s going to happen – and Bayrou’s lot also have the parliamentary elections in June to think about, so can’t risk pissing too many people off…

The latest polls (also the last, what with voting about to take place in the first round) putting Sarkozy and Royal just 1% apart – and Le Pen overtaking Bayrou.

It’s all still hugely unpredictable, in other words. According to the BBC, a third of voters still haven’t made up their minds – and with only 10% between the top and fourth placed candidate, who can tell what these floating voters my get up to?

More on the results (hopefully) tomorrow.

The clock’s ticking, it’s still very tight, and deals are being proposed left, right and centre, important issues are being avoided, and the English language press is struggling to explain it all (and sometimes being deconstructed in the process – even the usually reliable Economist and Financial Times).

One of the best roundups of the current standing I’ve seen is over at Deutsche Welle, which stresses again just how utterly unpredictable the whole situation is (once again, a reminder: as many as 42% of French voters have supposedly not made up their minds, and polling for French elections is in addition extremely unreliable – making Nicholas Sarkozy’s apparent 3 to 6 point lead over Segolene Royal, and her 5 to 6 point lead over Francois Bayrou, well within the margin for error…). The Independent is also surprisingly good, in the first of a series of reports they’ll be running on the elections this week.

There’ll no doubt be more from me on this as the week progresses, and likely also on the rather paltry anti-Putin protests in Russia, if they continue. There could be something more than I’m currently expecting behind the things, after all (more from the Washington Post and New York Times). Maybe Berezovsky has more support in Russia than previously thought?

Update: Via Ari’s new blog (formerly guest posting at Aapotsikko) – a test to determine which French presidential candidate is most in line with your views (in French). As vaguely suspected:

So that’s Centrist Bayrou on a 48% match, then a second place tie (with a 40% match) between Socialist Segolene Royal, Communist Marie-Georges Buffet and the significantly more fringe Frederic Nihous of the centre-right “Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Tradition” party. Then Green candidate Dominique Voynet and right-winger Philippe de Villiers each on 32%, then “Revolutionary Communist” Olivier Besancenot and centre-right frontrunner Nicholas Sarkozy jointly on 28%, with nutty fascist Jean Marie Le Pen claiming the penultimate spot with 20%, ahead of yet another nutty communist, Arlette Laguiller, on 16%. A far more interesting field than we’re likely to get in any British or American elections any time soon, it must be said…

First round this weekend, but most people outside la belle France still don’t know much about what’s at stake, or what it all means.

The best place to start is probably French Élection 2007′s the French election for dummies and Meet the contenders pages – nice swift overviews of candidates and election procedure.

Then the Economist has a nice run-down of why it’s all so tight – with the New Statesman explaining just why the title of President is so coveted in France (if your guess is “almost unbelievably huge amounts of power” then you’re on to something…)

And, of course, there’s the general excitement. As the election could go any of four ways (far-right, centre-right, centrist or centre-left), the French electorate have genuinely got something to be interested in again, as the Financial Times explains.

For someone British – where in the last three decades a government with no real opposition that lasted 18 years was eventually replaced by a government with no real opposition that has lasted 10 years – the idea of such a close, unpredictable election is practically impossible to comprehend (not least because of our piss-poor electoral system). For Americans and others from two-party states, the idea that it could genuinely go any of four ways (well, three really – if Le Pen gets through to the final round everyone sane will rally against him, just as they did five years ago) must be equally bizarre.

But close and unpredictable it is. According to some reports, up to 18 million voters – 42% of the electorate – are as yet undecided. Which all goes to make these last few days even more hectic and volatile, with the far right Le Pen accusing the centre-right Sarkozy of not being properly French (Le Pen hoping to deport the majority of – especially non-white – immigrants) while others accuse Sarkozy himself of being racist, while everyone attacks centre-left Royal (but not because she’s a woman – OH no…) and tries to ignore centrist wildcard Bayrou.

At this late stage, the fact that as many as 40% of voters are undecided makes predictions very tricky indeed. But although official campaigning only kicked off this week, the elections have been dominating the political scene in France for months now – arguably for a good couple of years, since the “Non” vote in the EU constitutional referendum proved that outgoing President Jacques Chirac was the lamest of lame ducks.

If so many are still undecided after all this time, I reckon that gives a decided advantage to the least-known of the leading candidates – the person few people have a strong opinion about, and so the person most likely to be left after voters work out who they DON’T want to vote for.

The smart money may still be on front-runner Sarkozy, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Francois Bayrou makes another unexpected surge in the final stages. He could certainly – on paper, at least – prove to be the best candidate for France, and possibly (thanks to his farming background giving him the best position any French political leader has had in years to push for serious reform of the Common Agricultural Policy) for the EU as a whole.

In other words, pay close attention over the next few days. The slightest gaffe (at which Royal excels) or revelation about past indiscretions (which seem to keep on haunting Sarkozy) could entirely change the outcome. And then it’ll be on to the next round, where it could all shift again…