“Either you lead, or you follow, or you get out of the way!”

Jose Manuel Durao Barroso’s won a new, clear 5-year mandate in the European Parliament last week with a great majority unveiling the political capabilities of the man who when he want to be a politician he can. Indeed, a politician who managed to become Foreign Minister, leader of his party and Prime Minister in Portugal and got the unanimous political (in June) and legal (July) endorsement of 27 Heads of European States of all colors, is not re-elected by coincidence. The confrontation that he had with the leader of the Greens group the week before in Brussels, was a vague indication of his political abilities.
The priorities of President Barroso at this stage, should focus on a fair distribution of portfolios in the new Commission, producing a College that will reflect the term “the Barroso Commission.” The European Union needs a politically strong and technically competent body of Commissioners that will restore the political role of the Commission, and work in synergy with the finely tuned administrative machine that is the European Commission.
In this context, Barroso is likely to start the new term with political vigour; it is expected that before the end of the year, we will see several Articles 50 “flying out” of Berlaymont.

The Paradox of the Election of the President
In being re-elected Barroso received 382 votes in favor, 219 against while 117 abstained. The president received in his favor the votes of the European People’s Party group which has nominated him and the votes of the Liberal group. Most of the Socialists abstained, contrarily to the earlier deals of Socialist group leader Martin Schultz who now should not be that certain of his election to European Parliament President for the second half of this term while the remaining Socialists and the Greens voted against. The paradox in this election is that it seems that Eurosceptics voted in favor of Barroso  proving a sense of responsibility by not fueling an institutional crisis in the Union, in the eve of the critical referendum in Ireland for the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, it is not coincidental that both British Labour and Conservatives, voted in favor.
This paradox brings to the surface the necessity to examine the context of Euroscepticism. European Eurosceptics in most cases are not Eurosceptics but Europhobics. They are non confident of the Brussels institutions because they perceive their practices as not transparent and this implies corruption and manipulation. Countries like Denmark, Sweden and Finland, not to speak of others, have a deep rooted democratic sense, spirit and belief that makes them diffident to the lack of transparency and the intransparent attitudes of the European bodies which they see as kind of corporate gangs. Of course this is not true, it is only a perception of certain peoples of Europe but in real life perceptions are realities. This means that the new Commission, at the political level, has to do a lot in two directions. Improve transparency rules of the Brussels based European administration and communicate Europe to its citizens.
Euroscepticism is only a syndrome. The disease is Europhobia and that is a major political problem in Europe. If the Barroso Commission proves politically capable to turn Europhobic citizens, by eliminating the causes of their concerns, into Europe-friendlies, then a major battle of the big war will be won.

The Lisbon Treaty
In case the Lisbon Treaty is turned down by one of the two objecting countries, Ireland and Czechia, the European Union should politically manage to overcome the problem and not be driven by the professional  Eurosceptics into a “limited Europe.” It goes without saying that Europe will enter into a systemic crisis but now Europe has again a strong leadership capable of bypassing any crisis and can move ahead. If Lisbon fails the Nice Treaty which will remain into effect, explicitly provides for a smaller number of Commissioners than the number of the Member States. Therefore there must be a “Plan B,” a fall-back position to activate the day after. A possible rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, although unlikely, must be seen not as an obstacle and Europeans should not cry over the poured milk.
A rejection of Lisbon, should be seen as an opportunity, a golden opportunity, to get rid of the “dead weight” Europe is loaded with. This will be a great step forward giving the chance to correct past mistakes. This is the change we need and it can be achieved only by pure political means. In real terms, we have certain Member States recieving only benefits, mostly financial, from the big European house they have the honor and privilege to be part.Their only contribution is to invent delay tactics and the permanent undermining of European institutions. These countries must be marginalized, first politically and then practically. When Austria elected in power the late Jörg Haider who was praising xenophobic and anti-Semitic Nazi policies, Austria’s EU membership was practically frozen and the defreeze came only when a non far-right government came into power. Such a marginalization was not provided by the Treaties, indeed technically was illegitimate, but it happened and it worked because it was politically correct.
In this context, it is logical to expect that if Ireland or Czechia do not ratify the Lisbon Treaty, the countries that should be losing their Commissioners, so to be in line with the Nice Treaty, should be those responsible that is Ireland and Czechia since they are acting interactively. This is not provided by any Treaty but is a realistic approach it will work as it is politically correct.
Instead of entering into a long lasting oriental type bazaar, an informal auction, of what the country that will lose its Commissioner is going to get in return, the EU must provide a non-negotiable political solution.To this effect, they should deprive the Commissioner’s post to all those that have rejected, in one way or another, the Lisbon Treaty.
If the Treaty fails, regardless if it fails because of the Irish referendum or the refusal of Czechian President Klaus Vaclav, Ireland and the Czech Republic should both lose their Commissioners for as long as the Nice Treaty is not replaced by a new Treaty. To cut this long story short. We do not see why a third Member State should be losing its Commissioner and Ireland or Czechia  keep theirs, if Ireland or Czechia are responsible.
Many years ago, I visited with my friend Dennis in his office. At the time he was the chief executive of an international conglomerate of hard drinks and spirits. He had just finished a management meeting and on his whiteboard was still written the phrase: “Either you lead, or you follow, or you get out of the way!” That was some twenty years ago, but that phrase, since then, has remained alive in my mind and it now seems very appropriate to me. If we want “project Europe” to succeed, we need to get rid of the dead weight, the parasites and of those Member States which have a hidden agenda.
Europe has been trapped in a hole of quick sand made out of contradictory and complicated rules served by a well established cast of technocrats, some of which are indeed serving different interests. Europe remains stagnant in this quick sand  through a weak rope which if it tries to pull on to get out, will break; and Europe will sink. Those who believe in Europe and can, strong and successful leaders like Angela Merkel, Nikola Sarkozy and evidently Jose Manuel Barroso, must take the initiative to give a strong political  hand and pull Europe out of this hole.

The new Commission likely to Start on 1st November
The election of Barroso last week, opened the procedure for Member States to nominate their Commissioner. Some Commissioners, have been already designated by their respective governments but the official procedure will start after the Lisbon Treaty question is sorted out. Assuming that the Treaty will be eventually approved in the first week of October, the new Commission should be taking over the 1st of November. Last week,  ended in agony of the sitting Bulgarian Commissioner Maglena Kuneva who gave up her seat in the European Parliament with the hope that she would be re-appointed as her country’s commissioner. Last Thursday, Prime Minister Boyko Borishov, despite mounting pressures from Brussels to re-nominate Kuneva, announced that Maglena Kuneva will not be the next Bulgarian Commissioner and that she will be offered another job.