Mr. Farage is also the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party and co-chairman of the European Parliament’s Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group.Farage was fined because of this speech, in which he claimed Mr. Rompuy has “all the charisma of a damp rag.” He also accused him of trying to kill European democracy and nation-states, probably because he’s from Belgium, “pretty much a non-country.” This is not the first time Mr. Farage, known as a euroskeptic, has drawn attention. After having been elected as an MEP, he has spent much of his time tracking financial irregularities within European institutions. He tries to expose the wastage of MEPs and EU commissioners, he talks about their holidays, he points out special funds. Nobody escapes his attacks, from EU commissioners to French farmers’ leaders; that’s why it’s not surprising that he has also attacked Mr. Van Rompuy.
His comments have two dimensions: first, he denounces the fact that the person designated as the EU’s “president” is someone almost nobody has heard of before his election to this prestigious post. Maybe he regrets that a Briton was not chosen for the permanent presidency of the Council of the EU, but his criticism reveals a legitimate interrogation. The Lisbon Treaty was aimed at transforming the EU into a global power center; that’s why the EU had to have a powerful cohesion represented by a powerful presidency. There was also the hope of providing the US president with a telephone number allowing him to talk with the EU directly, if necessary. However, if today Barack Obama does want to call “Europe,” he has four numbers at his disposal, and nobody’s sure who he should call. The question is why somebody such as Van Rompuy has been chosen for an office designed to become a credible representation of the EU.
It mustn’t be too hard to find in the European continent somebody more charismatic who is known globally. However, one mustn’t forget that charismatic leaders are each others’ rivals, which would make it hard for them to be elected. The only person all 27 member states would accept could only be someone like Mr. Van Rompuy, and this is what has happened. Nonetheless, even though this was the only possible choice, the situation is far from what the Lisbon Treaty was aiming at. This very post was designed as a political position and not as a simple bureaucratic duty. However, as of today, the EU “presidency” is far from symbolizing the EU’s global ambitions; instead the risk of having an invisible EU at the end has grown stronger. This “invisibility” assures member states wide room to maneuver, reinforcing centrifugal effects.
The second part of Farage’s criticism is about Mr. Van Rompuy’s designation method. The problem is that the president of the Council of the EU, also called the president of Europe, was nominated by the Council of the EU, bypassing European citizens. One could say that those who nominated Mr. Van Rompuy were elected by their citizens, so there is no problem of legitimacy. Still, the impression is that the Lisbon Treaty, which had the purpose of bringing EU mechanisms closer to the European people, didn’t fulfill its mission. The problem is that most ordinary EU citizens say, “Even if he was nominated by the leaders whom I have elected, I wouldn’t have chosen him as my president.
