Latest entry
- Mark Mardell
- 23 May 08, 09:11 AM
Around the time of the French presidential election a rather cheesy French TV series featured the French president, Segolene Royal, picking up the phone to speak to her American counterpart Hillary Clinton. Segolene lost and the other fictional projection looks increasingly less likely with every day that passes.
But should a woman be the president of Europe? Or one the presidents, anyway. The European Commissioner for Communications Margot Wallstrom is about to launch a Europe-wide campaign to get a fair share for women in one of the tops jobs.
She'll be arguing her case in tomorrow's Financial Times and many other European newspapers.
Mainly because Tony Blair's hat is halfway into the ring, there's been a fair bit of speculation about who will get the new job of president of the council.
Like the nearly new job, the beefed up representative on foreign affairs, it is set up under the Lisbon Treaty.
Gossip about who might become president of the commission, if it's not Barroso again, and who'll be president of the European Parliament has been restricted to inside the petit ring, if indeed that is the Brussels equivalent of the Washington Beltway and Westminster village.
Wallstrom, whose first big political job was as Sweden's minister for women , argues that it is time to break the male cartel. She notes that when top EU jobs are discussed there's always lots of talk about the balance between small and large countries, between left and right but nothing at all about gender balance. So "men choose men".
She make a good point noting that Spain's new cabinet is unusual in having more women than men. (Is it the first in Europe? The world?) She is right that it is a fairly extraordinary state of affairs that politics is still so male-dominated.
She also say if there were more men than women in politics "things would be done differently". Is this true? To those who say women would mean a softer and more consensual approach I would answer with two words "Margaret Thatcher". But I do think that women in politics are less driven by their own egos, more concerned with issues than grandstanding. It is one of the reasons that Angela Merkel is so impressive: she gets on with solving problems. But a quick glance across the pond might see my theory crash and burn.
Ms Wallstrom also dismisses the argument that there aren't the women around to do the top jobs. She lists Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, Tarja Halonen, president of Finland, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, president of Latvia 1999-2007, Mary Robinson, president of Ireland 1990-97, Dora Bakoyannis, foreign minister of Greece, Ursula Plassnik, foreign minister of Austria, Margaret Beckett, former British foreign secretary, Emma Bonino, former Italian minister for trade and European commissioner.
One name is clearly missing. That of Margot Wallstrom herself. Her spokesman says she's made it clear that she's not interested in a job for herself. We'll see.
Recent entries
- Mark Mardell
- 22 May 08, 10:15 AM
Ever wondered what happened to Gordon Brown's triumph?
At the last meeting of the European Union's prime ministers and presidents, he grabbed headlines by unexpectedly persuading the other leaders to look at cutting VAT on environmentally friendly products.
Many at the time thought the leaders and the Commission were willing to give him the headline, but precious little of real value.
British diplomats haven't been told by Downing Street to push the idea, and currently it's stuck in the office of the commissioner for taxation.
The Commission tells me that this is not a new idea; it is at least two years old. They have two investigations going on. One is to look at whether reducing VAT on environmentally friendly goods does actually persuade people to buy them.
The second is how you define "environmentally friendly". A spokeswoman points out that technology changes so fast that today's friend can be tomorrow's foe.
So, perhaps, the reports may be done before the summer holidays and could lead to proposals by the end of the year.
But the Commission is not keen, and a penny to a euro they'll propose some tax incentive: but it won't mean a cut in VAT.
- Mark Mardell
- 20 May 08, 12:01 PM
Don't ever work with children and animals, they say. A view I can appreciate after trying to persuade French sheep to co-operate for a piece to camera for tonight's BBC News at Ten. Having herded them into the corner of a field in Picardy they simply won't bound about behind me in a tele-visually attractive manner however much I walk backwards into the flock trying to provoke them. Of course when they do oblige and bound around full of the joys of spring I fluff my lines. There is no chance of persuading them to regroup for a retake.
I am chasing sheep around Northern France for a report on the reform of one of the European Union's most expensive and most controversial policies.
The Common Agricultural Policy no longer takes up 70% of the EU's budget as it did in the 70s but at 43% and a cost of nearly £40bn a year, it is still the EU's most expensive policy.
Today the European Commission publishes its "health check" on the CAP which is a prelude to much more serious reform.
The sheep are grazing on a beautiful hill side near the village of Clery sur Somme. The farmer Marc Dubiquet handles the grass which brushes around our legs. He says it's only grown so high in the last few weeks. The sheep seem to be enjoying it. He tells me:
"It's very important for us farmers that the CAP's kept and indeed that the subsidies for sheep are increased. There's so much lamb from New Zealand on sale in French shops, so we have to concentrate on quality, traceability, animal health and so on which makes us uncompetitive."
But the commission wants farmers to be more responsive to market forces, and give them subsidies not for growing specific crops or raising particular animals. They want instead to pay them for looking after the environment and by the size of fields. So if Mr Dubiquet wanted to get rid of his sheep and plant tomatoes instead, while keeping his hedgerows in order, they think he should be allowed to do so, without losing his CAP money. This is called "decoupling" in the jargon.
It's a trend that started in 2003. But it's a long haul. And Mr Dubiquet is not impressed.
"If you're telling me we could get subsidies for looking after the land and the money will stay the same, well and good. But I don't believe it: without CAP there would be no more sheep in France so we want to keep subsidies: end of story."
But it is not the end of story. Today's proposals will acknowledge French sheep farmers as a special case and will allow their government to keep paying them a subsidy. Britain is against this. The British government thinks that if Mr Dubiquet can't sell his lamb and make a profit, then that's tough. British sources say it distorts the market to keep unprofitable farmers in business. One commission source puts it more succinctly. "The British are allergic to charity."
So allergic that there is real concern about a proposal in today's health check. It would allow national governments to cream off 10% of farmer's CAP money and spend it on special projects. The commission favours it going towards schemes like insurance or product promotion. But it is clear the French have other plans and Britain is worried that this will lead to "re-coupling", a new link between production and subsidies.
On the hillside, Mr Dubiquet shows us a very rusty mess tin he has just found at the bottom of the field. For this is the Somme, one of the most horrific battles of World War I. Now the sudden explosions that shatter the calm afternoon are just bird-scarers to keep crows off the cornfields. But the legacy of two world wars is clear in the Common Agricultural Policy. Europe starved and Europe went short. CAP was designed by those who want to ensure that could never happen again.
For years now it has seemed a quaint hangover from another era. But some are now saying that today's shortages and rising food prices show it's not so silly after all. The French Agriculture Minister Michael Barnier is a big fan of CAP. He tells me:
"At the end of World War II, Europe had to import its food. That's not the case now. We are able to feed ourselves and we are part of the global market for food. It's important that Europe ensures its own food security. I am not talking about total self-sufficiency but I am saying that we need to produce to feed Europe and meet the challenges of the global food situation."
He argues that there is nothing wrong in using the money of European taxpayers to protect those who might be left vulnerable by the changes suggested in the health check.
"I want to keep animal husbandry strong in France both to produce meat and milk, and to ensure the survival of rural areas. I was president of Savoy in the French Alps. It's a mountainous region so it can only produce milk. It's not economically viable but it keeps communities together."
This French insistence will be fought by the British. Indeed although the commission proposals are broadly along the sort of lines the government likes, they do not go far enough for the Chancellor, Alistair Darling. In a recent letter to his European Union counterparts he urges what amounts to the abolition of the Common Agricultural Policy. He writes calling for:
• Phasing out of all elements of the CAP that are designed to keep EU agricultural prices above world market levels (such measures cost EU consumers €43bn in 2006
• An end to direct payments to EU farmers (which cost EU taxpayers €34bn - 32% of the whole EU budget - in 2006)
The attitude in the commission is rather "we've heard it all before." Gordon Brown was particularly famous for demanding the abolition of CAP. The Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boels seems wryly amused:
"It's a really nice statement but it's completely politically impossible. When I saw my Darling, my new Darling's advice on the Common Agricultural Policy it reminded me quite a bit of something I've seen before. I don't know if it is a special gene in finance ministers that they want to cut all payments as low as possible."
When I meet the commissioner, she is just back from a weekend at home in Denmark. She was a farmer, her husband is a farmer and she proudly shows me her worn nails as proof she's being doing some work around the farm. She says the French will come around in the end.
"In all economic textbooks, it says when you have higher prices you get higher production and this is going to happen. Decoupling simply makes it easier for farmers to make their own decision. We are not sitting here in Brussels deciding what a farmer in England is going to produce. He or she has to look at the market and see where the demands are. I want to set farmers free. I think when farmers in France learn the profits they can make from the changes we are proposing, they will love it."
Perhaps they will. But the argument, between the two extremes represented by France and Britain, will go on long after my reluctant props on the Northern French hillside are turned into lamb chops.
- Mark Mardell
- 19 May 08, 10:28 AM
On a ridiculously short visit to Dublin for a meeting at the Institute of international and European affairs it's clear to even the casual observer that politics are afoot. The lamp-posts all around the city are hung with colourful posters. In the only one of the EU's 27 countries to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, the campaign is in full swing.
Among the "yes" and "no" posters one reads "People died for your freedom - don't throw it all away". My mind on other matters, this rather rolled over me at first. As a Brit, I am very familiar with the argument of some Eurosceptics that further European integration is an insult to those who died in the two world wars.
But of course the poster put out by COIR has quite a different meaning in Ireland. The unspecified dead are those executed by the British after the 1916 rising and those who died fighting the British in the war of 1919. Perhaps they include others regarded by nationalists and republicans as martyrs.
Those who've been following the campaign closely tell me that for the first time in such a campaign traditional Irish nationalism is playing a part alongside arguments about agriculture, economics, neutrality. Not all the angles are expected.
One person I talk to (oh, alright that first point of contact for most visiting journalists to any country, the taxi driver) argues the EU has made the country prosperous, but money has spoiled the country. He will vote "no".
It is only one argument among many, of course. One of the reasons politicians dislike referendums is that they allow people to vote on what question they would like to answer. Curiously one rarely hears this at general elections where (in Britain, and other countries with constituencies and a first past the post system) it's just as true that the formal question is about one's choice of individual MP rather than opinions on the right prime minister, or the economy.
One of the detailed arguments that is making the rounds in Ireland is the impact of a treaty that shrinks the commission to 18 members. At the moment there are 27 commissioners: one for every country that is a member of the EU. Although their brief is to impartially represent the European Union as a whole, it is a fact that they also act as advocates for their national interest and are important conduits between their national capitals and Brussels.
There's no doubt losing a commissioner for five years at a stretch would be a significant loss of national influence, particularly for a smaller country. I'm sure the EU would try to find ways to soften the blow, with number two roles in commissioners' cabinets where policy is decided and prominent roles in the civil service. A big job in the council or the parliament would also be dangled in the direction of losers but nevertheless countries would face a temporary loss of a seat at the top table.
The alternative is the risk that the already large commission of 27 would expand still further. Roles like commissioner for multilingualism and for consumer protection had to be invented when Bulgaria and Romania joined the union. When Croatia joins there will have to be another one (any suggestions for what role?) Obviously for those who want to leave or abolish the EU these are not real dilemmas, the conundrum is their point. But it is tricky for those who talk about reform. Neither choice is particularly palatable.
But back to my original point: is nationalism playing a big part in this referendum? What would Patrick Pearse or Michael Collins have fought against the Lisbon treaty?
- Mark Mardell
- 15 May 08, 12:07 AM
I've written this reflection on Serbia's place in the world after last Sunday's elections for the World Service version of From our Own Correspondent and it will be broadcast later today.
The stage is magnificent. A jumping riot of Technicolor neon dotted with the white silhouetted images of dancing girls. A singer is perched on a board carried by three muscled men. "Can we start?" she asks, "they are getting tired." The disembodied voice of the director booms back: "They are young, they are strong, they are Greek". But he relents and I get a preview of the catchy Greek entry to the Eurovision song contest.
I was watching the run-throughs for Eurovision in an auditorium in central Belgrade - as last year's winners, Serbia gets to host the contest here in a couple of weeks' time. It seemed a good place to be the day after Serbia had, according to its president, decisively voted for a European future, and rejected those parties which wanted Serbia to turn its face away from the West and towards Russia.
In fact, the result wasn't quite as conclusive as the president suggested hours after the polls had closed. About 48% of votes went to pro-European parties and about 48% for those which want to stop all talks until all EU countries declare Kosovo as part of Serbia, which is about as likely as Britain winning Eurovision.
The voice of the bodiless director booms out once more over the stage, "Bring on Russia". A young man in a white suit appears and croons a ballad while a dancer ice skates around him and another kicks a languid leg from the top of a short ladder. The symbolism is lost on me: perhaps "Better stuck at the top of a ladder than skating in ever decreasing circles on thin ice" is an old Russian proverb. Anyway their presence is a timely reminder that ambitious as the European Union is, Eurovision is even more expansive and inclusive.
The European Union certainly has what is known as enlargement fatigue, which sounds like a unfortunate side effect after taking those pills advertised in junk e-mails but is in fact a form of indigestion that the EU got after swallowing 10 new countries four years ago. But it was seen as a moral duty to take on board not only six former Communist states but three - Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia - which were actually part of the old Soviet Union.
But the EU is willing to undergo another bout of indigestion for the sake of the Balkans, haunted as it is by its failure to cope with the collapse of Yugoslavia and the horrific violence that it unleashed. Slovenia is already inside the EU's loving arms. Montenegro, Macedonia, Croatia and Kosovo are mustard keen to join. The European Union doesn't want Serbia to be the black hole in the Balkans.
But about half the population apparently want to turn instead to the East. It's not that odd, I reflected earlier in the week as I listened to music that will never make it to Eurovision. In one of the main churches of central Belgrade, three orthodox priests in shimmering gold and red robes sang the beautiful Mass. Serbs who look to Russia do not just do so out of a fit of pique against nations which recognised Kosovo - religion, alphabet and culture are linked. And as a young pro-European businessman pointed out, there's another reason people have for liking the Russians, as he said succinctly, "They didn't bomb this city. The EU and Nato did that."
It was a few months ago. while retreating behind UN lines of in front of angry Serbs marching through the ethnically-divided city of Mitrovitza to protest about the declaration of independence by Kosovo, that a Danish journalist reminded me that this link with Russia is cemented by admiration. She pointed out that after the death of Anna Karenina, her lover goes to join the Serbian cavalry. Russians see Serbs as dashingly romantic defending the frontier of THEIR civilisation.
So a Russian future would not be historically unlikely. But it won't happen. Strange as it may seem to those in Britain who see the EU as rather old-fashioned and not much to write home about, in Eastern Europe joining is seen both as a badge of modernity and a promise of prosperity.
But Kosovo remains a very real stumbling block. The pro-Europeans can only form a government with the support of the anti-European socialists, who happen to be the party that once had the dictator Slobodan Milosovic as its leader. He died in The Hague on trial for war crimes but the party still honour his memory and the current leaders say their main purpose in joining a government will be to stiffen the position that Kosovo is part of Serbia.
Few Serbian politicians will tell the awkward truth that whether it is sad, wrong, or against international law, Kosovo is not going to revert to Serbian ownership any time soon.
Unfortunately, back at Eurovision, the Serbs are not practising their entry so I don't actually get to hear it in the flesh, but the lyrics which could be a lament for a dead lover have some distinctly odd touches: "My wheat put me to sleep, wake me up on St Vitus' day". Terry Wogan may not spot it but a Serbian audience would recognise a heavily-coded reference to the battle of Kosovo in the Middle Ages, an event which looms very large in the Serb nationalists' consciousness. Maybe their entry should be accompanied by dancers stumbling around as if climbing a boulder-strewn path towards a European destiny?
- Mark Mardell
- 12 May 08, 07:26 PM
Was Serbian President Boris Tadic a master of spin on election night, or just genuinely excited?
He announced, with around 50% of the votes counted, that his pro-European coalition had won the election, and that it was a victory for those who wanted to see Serbia in the European Union.
Spin is a much misused word, but it's classically seizing an event and making sure your interpretation of it is the only interpretation in town.
From Australia to Turkey the victory was front page news, all the better for being unexpected.
Stunning victory
Some Western diplomats feel that, if this was an example of Mr Tadic showing bold leadership, strategic vision and a bit of political know-how, it was about time. But they tend to think he just got carried away.
It was indeed a stunning and unexpected victory for the Coalition for a European Serbia.
They are ten percent ahead of their nearest rivals, the Radicals.
They have increased their votes and the parties which wanted to put a halt to talks with the EU have not.
But, by my reckoning, with nearly all the votes counted, 44% voted for pro-European parties and 48% for the anti's (the missing eight percent went to national minority parties and I am not sure what they think).
Not quite as clear cut as Mr Tadic suggested.
More importantly he will have an uphill struggle forming a government and can't do it without making some unlikely friends.
Socialist key
The Socialists, the party which was led by dictator Slobodan Milosevic, are once again the key to governing Serbia. Their 20 MPs will make or break any coalition.
At first sight it is much more logical that they would form a government with the Radicals and Kostunica's Serbian Democrats.
The Socialists are passionate about Kosovo staying part of Serbia, suspicious of the European Union, look favourably on Russia and are bitterly opposed to the pursuit of war criminals.
The Radicals agree warmly on all these points.
But slight and strategy may dictate otherwise.
High price
The Socialists were miffed that the Radicals wouldn't do a deal before the election.
And the obvious meeting of minds carries the danger that the Socialists would get lost from electoral view without a distinct profile of their own.
But their price may be too high for Tadic. It is not only their views on Europe and Kosovo and war crimes.
They will also refuse to work with some of the existing and potential coalition parties. They won't talk to the Liberal Democrats, for instance.
They would be bound to clash with G17, which wants more and quicker privatisation.
But insiders say there are real advantages for the Socialists in going into a pro-European government.
They would look distinctive and remove the tarnish of the past.
By associating themselves with a new Serbia they would create a new image for their own party.
They would, in a sense, be the voice of the opposition within the government.
Some diplomats think this is definitely what they want, but there will be a few weeks of thumb-sucking while they look as if they are considering all the options.
Mr Tadic's spin will probably turn out to be right - this was a victory - and his alliance will form a government.
But the price demanded by the Socialists may make it feel a little hollow.
- Mark Mardell
- 11 May 08, 09:25 PM
The corridors of the Radical party headquarters were filled with a thick fug of smoke, now so unfamiliar in most European political headquarters, as journalists and politicians puffed on their cigarettes and earnestly scribbled figures on pieces of paper.
A big bottle of champagne went into one office but acting leader Tomislav Nikolic was unsmiling as he marched from his office to talk to colleagues in another room.
Outside senior party members talked earnestly and grimaced. As you'll see from my previous post I was presuming the opinion polls were right and was expecting a radical victory.
But as I left the building to prepare for a live report, it was before any figures had been released but something didn't smell quite right.
Earlier in the day talking to people, I encounter fewer radical supporters than I expected, but put that down to a "Belgrade effect."
From the figures I have at the moment, it looks as though both of the parties that stood on a "Kosovo must stay ours and the EU must recognise that" have taken a knock and actually lost votes from last time round.
President Tadic's pro-European coalition seems to be the biggest overall party.
Of course that doesn't rule out his opponents forming a government in the end, but if this was a referendum on "East or West", the people seem to have voted for a European future.
- Mark Mardell
- 11 May 08, 07:00 PM
I wonder if a portrait of Tomislav Nikolic will ever stare down on my slumbering form when I visit Belgrade.
The thought is prompted by the hotel I am staying in while covering the Serbian elections.
It has paintings of well known world leaders on the walls of the rooms.
I am relatively lucky: a stern Vaclav Havel hangs above my bed.
Colleagues have Ronald Reagan and, alarmingly, Mao.
Hitler used to grace one of the rooms but was apparently removed after complaints from the Israeli embassy. He still features on the hotel's brochure.
So, while greatness is not the same as goodness, I have a hunch Tomislav Nikolic may turn out to be a very interesting politician indeed.
Kosovo warning
Mr Nikolic is a man with strong-set policies, particularly about Kosovo.
His party says that, in power, they would continue talks about joining the European Union only if all EU countries declared that Kosovo was part of Serbia.
This will not happen when the majority have already recognised it as an independent state.
The European Union has also said talks will continue with Serbia only if it shows much more co-operation about catching those accused of war crimes such as General Mladic.
The Radicals are understandably sensitive about those accused of war crimes. Its leader Vojislav Seselj is in prison in the Hague accused of inciting the murder and torture of ethic opponents.
East or West?
This is why many see this general election as a referendum on whether Serbia should face East or West.
Although this indeed is what potentially hangs in the balance, I expected people here to be much more concerned about the economy.
Talking to people both in the Sunday market and outside a church service suggests they too are mainly interested in Serbia's place in the world.
A feature of the market is the fish stalls. At the foot of the stalls and their slabs of ice and dead fish are a number of plastic bowls justabout large enough to hold their prisoner: big fat carp, floating, if not swimming, in the water.
The proverbial big fish in a small pool, they look anything but comfortable. But Serbia is undergoing a lengthy process of readjustment from being the big fish in the small pool of Yugoslavia to choosing which bigger pool to splash in: the EU or Russia's severely diminished sphere of influence.
Mr Nikolic is in no doubt that Russia, China and Arab countries make better friends than the rest of Europe.
It is always interesting to see what happens when men with clear views swim in the murky waters of government and exercise real power.
The opinion polls predict his party will be the largest after tonight's results are counted.
But so it was in the last election, and the one before that. What has changed is Kosovo and Kostunica.
The prime minister is sometimes referred to as a kingmaker, because he heads a small party, the Serbian Democratic Party, which holds the balance of power. But he is a kingmaker who has come to adore wearing the crown himself.
After the last election he went into alliance with the pro-European Democratic Party of President Boris Tadic.
Increasingly passionate about the issue of Kosovo, he pulled the plug on the coalition after Kosovo declared independence.
After this election he may well throw his lot in with the radicals.
'Up to the EU'
Jostling alongside other reporters and camera crews, I catch up with Mr Nikolic outside a polling station in the area known as New Belgrade, across the Danube from the city centre.
After posing with his attractive wife and family, and then voting, he turns to the assembled media. I ask him about Serbia's future relations with the EU.
"The European Union will make its own mind up about whether it wants us to be a member or not," he tells me.
"We are open to them but it's all entirely up to the EU because as long as the UN recognises Serbia as a sovereign state, a whole sovereign state it will remain. The European Union has to accept this."
But didn't his conditions close the door? "Our conditions are no different from those any other country would make," he adds.
So is this election a choice between East and West?
"Of course we will be the gateway between East and West. Until such a time as the EU recognises Serbia's full sovereign borders we should have no further negotiations with the European Union."
He added that there would be better relations with those countries, such as Greece and Spain, that don't recognise Kosovo.
'Decisive poll'
As I talk to former Serbian foreign minister Vuk Draskovic, now a member of another main bloc in this election - the Coalition for a European Serbia - we can hear the hubbub from the street outside.
It is, I imagine, what many pro-European Serbs hope their country will become.
The pedestrian precinct is lined with shops familiar on any British high street, like Lush and Accessorize.
A café takes up the centre of the pavement where young, fashionably-dressed people lounge in comfortable armchairs drinking iced mocca in the spring sunshine.
Mr Draskovic believes the economy at least is at risk.
"These elections are decisive. For the future of Serbia," he tells me.
"We have two ways: to join the EU or to go back to the past of Milosevic."
That stark? I ask.
"Of course they wouldn't repeat the same things. But if the government was made up of anti-European forces, it's very clear the door will be closed on the European Union. For how long I don't know. For a year for two years, because very soon the people of Serbia will face the consequences.
"Catastrophe in the economy, catastrophe of the rule of law, catastrophe of our relations with the European Union and United States of America."
He says too it would create a black hole in the Balkans, the risk of more instability in a region famed for its instability.
The consequences of the election will take a while to show, but we should get the results soon. I will update when I can.
- Mark Mardell
- 9 May 08, 10:20 AM
America has a "race" to be president. What do we have, here in the European Union, when it comes to the competition for the job of president?
The new job, that is, president of the council. Nothing so obvious and active that it would justify any athletic metaphor.
Over the last few days I've toyed with thoughts about Rubik's cubes, snooker or those hugely irritating plastic games where you have to jiggle several little balls into hollows.
All capture the fiendish task of balancing three top jobs (the new president, the new high representative for foreign affiairs and the president of the commission) where the appointments have to please a clear majority of EU leaders, balance the left and the right and small and large countries.
Musical chairs
But perhaps musical chairs is better.
If you watch children playing musical chairs, you will observe several types of individual.
Those who, rather naively, enter into the spirit of the thing dashing around and only looking for a seat when the music actually stops.
Then there are those anxious not to lose, who hover too obviously near a particular chair, not daring to join the fun and games.
And there are those who bounce around with all appearance of abandon, all the while carefully watching mummy's hand on the "stop" button.
The moment the hand moves, they make sure they are sitting down, knocking hoverers and dashers alike to the ground.
The point is you can't afford to look too obvious.
Earlier in the week I reported on Radio 4 about a French briefing, that Sarkozy was, reluctantly, withdrawing his support from Blair for the job.
It followed shortly after a friendly meeting between the French president and the German leader, Angela Merkel, and was a result, I presumed, of her reluctance to give Blair the job.
But others think that Sarkozy was playing a cleverer game than that.
All the Brussels insiders and old hands I know agree on one thing about top jobs in the European Union.
The front-runner never wins, and the winner emerges from the woodwork at the last moment.
So was Mr Sarkozy trying to push Blair back into the woodwork, to spring out again at a more appropriate moment?
Favourites
Certainly much of the hot money seems to be moving on to the Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen, who as a good player of the game, stresses he is not a candidate.
But the French briefing also pointedly said that the two best qualified people for the two presidential posts (commission and council) were Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and the current President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso.
It didn't say who should get which job.
Some think Barroso would be a wise choice for president of the council.
Peter Ludlow, the author of the razor-sharp insights into summits and other EU business, wrote way back in December "those inclined to take bets on the identity of the first permanent president of the European Council might be well-advised to consider what odds to quote on Barroso.
"As one who has in his time been president of the commission, prime minister and foreign minister, Barroso has... both the pedigree and, if 2007 is anything to go by, the form to do a job that is as crucially important as it is fiendishly difficult."
When I last asked Barroso about this, his reply was on the lines of "I am very happy in the job I am doing".
For once I think we can take a politician's statement nearly at face value: he would rather stay on as president of the commission. That doesn't mean that he couldn't be persuaded to switch.
For who else is there? Bertie Ahern is mentioned sometimes, but the way of his going from Irish politics doesn't look good.
Merkel would, no doubt, be excellent but her job is to win the German election in 2009.
Worth a bet?
Isn't there anybody I haven't mentioned?
Well, quite a few, in one sense. Any former head of government or head of state could be in the running.
I have neither the time nor patience to make a list of all the potential candidates, which would include all the former presidents and prime ministers of EU countries.
Giscard d'Estaing rather fancies himself for the job, I'm told.
Kohl and Thatcher aren't well enough. Any past leaders you'd place a bet on?
- Mark Mardell
- 8 May 08, 08:06 AM
It is a skill.
Working out which members of the European Parliament might change their minds and then change their vote.
Then doing whatever it takes, a pleasantly liquid lunch for some, a very sober technical report full of convincing graphs for others: it's all worth someone's hard cash.
There are apparently 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels, so the people who pay them must think they are getting their money's worth.
MEPs will vote today on some first steps to tighten up the rules on lobbying in both the European Parliament and the Commission.
At the moment, lobbyists can get a full pass only if they sign up to a set of rules: in future all of them will have to take the pledge.
If they then break the code (which might be something like this), they'd get kicked off the authorised list and could face other sanctions, such as fines.
Equal treatment
Lobbying is defined as "activities carried out with the objective of influencing the policy formulation and decision-making processes of the European institutions".
This includes business, big and small, and think tanks, pressure groups and trade unions. Industrialists and environmentalists would be treated alike.
They will also be required to say how much they are being paid, and by whom.
MEPs' committee reports also may come in future with a list of lobbyists who've had a "significant input" into the document.
This comes with a new piece of jargon: it's called measuring the "legislative footprint".
Stretching a point
All this is based on former MEP Alex Stubb who has recently become Finland's Foreign Minister. You can read the report here.
And see some silly pictures of Mr Stubb here.
Get stretching and posing, Miliband.
But I digress.
Although by no means tough enough for some, especially the greens, the new rules proposed by the flying Finn are considerably tougher than the rules in Westminster, where there is, I suppose, lobbying for stricter rules on lobbying than the current voluntary industry code.
Is this one area where MEPs are setting the pace? Should Westminster follow suit? And do you agree with MEPs that lobbyists perform a valuable function in informing their debates?
- Mark Mardell
- 7 May 08, 12:01 AM
Do you miss the drachma and the deutschmark, or do you wish the pound had gone the way of the peseta?
The European Commission is today celebrating ten years since the official decision to adopt the single currency.
The euro is now used by 15 countries and 320 million people. Later today we expect an announcement that Slovakia will be allowed to give up the koruna and embrace the euro.
But the commission feels that the currency isn't punching its weight so is coming up with some ideas to add heft to its blow.
In the words of one insider, although the euro was a deeply political project, the eurozone is at the moment "an economic giant but a political dwarf".
There are two prescriptions, both familiar to those who follow European Union politics.
One is that economic ministers should think more about their responsibilities to the bloc as a whole, and less of their national interest.
In a phrase almost designed to give a delicious shiver to eurosceptics, the commission promises to "better exploit all instruments provided by the Lisbon treaty to promote broader economic policy coordination."
The second prescription is to speak with a single European voice to the outside world.
Top tables
One idea is to exclude extraneous chatter from mere nation states at the world's top tables.
The commission will argue for a single seat in international financial bodies. I can't get any clarity but I presume they mean the IMF, the OECD, the World Bank and perhaps the G8.
"At the moment we take up too many seats, too much space," says one official.
Britain, in the EU but not the eurozone, would presumably keep its seats on all these bodies although, again, I can't be certain of that.
But would we have been better off joining the euro when it began? When Labour won the 1997 election many of us assumed that there would be a referendum within a couple of years on joining the euro.
Gordon Brown squashed the idea and his then right-hand man briefed the press from the Red Lion pub. Now the idea of Britain joining isn't a blip on even the most sensitive and wide-ranging political radars.
While Blair was keen on the euro, Brown changed his mind on becoming chancellor.
Despite the guff about five tests, he is hostile to the whole project. He not only believes it would be bad for Britain, he thinks long-term the currency is doomed to failure, full stop.
Or at least semi colon: he cannot see how a single currency can work over a long time when individual countries need such different interest rates
'Historic error'
But many of those who were in favour in 1997 think Britain will one day join.
The head of the European Trade Union Confederation, John Monks, is one of them.
He told me: "I think it's almost certain to be seen as a historic error that Britain missed a chance to be part of forming something rather than being under pressure to deliver later. So I think what governments were too timid to do, to join the euro, will be seen as a big mistake."
He says although there are obviously winners and losers Britain would have been better off with the euro.
"The effects of it have been masked by the effects of a strong pound over the last five of six years and the British economy doing well, but now the pound has shot down 16 points against the euro and we are moving back into an era of volatile currencies and the pound is not in a strong position."
Indeed he argues the euro has been essential in helping the world weather the sub prime crisis.
"The euro has made a big difference," Mr Monks says.
"What would have happened if we hadn't had the euro? We would probably have had devaluations of the franc and the lira and some other currencies against a strong deutschmark.
"The currency instability in Europe would have had an effect in the rest of the world and would have deepened the atmosphere of gloom and crisis. As it is, we have a very solid currency in the European Union."
'One size fits all'
But Open Europe's Neil O'Brien thinks the strains are just beginning to show.
"You are starting to see some really alarming problems of exactly the kind that people who were critical expected.
"Because you have a "one size fits all" monetary policy, you have a country like Spain with completely the wrong interest rate and that inevitably means bigger booms and busts, more unemployment and damage to the economy.
"The euro's never been stress-tested so far, but now we are heading into choppy waters. There is no lender of last resort, so if big banks goes bust the whole thing could unravel quite quickly."
Mr O'Brien's dismissive about the idea that Britain will join, one day in the distant future.
He believes the political discussion about joining the euro is over and "it will stay over".
"The government, in their five test assessment, made the case very strongly that the UK economy is just not convergent enough with the eurozone for a whole number of structural reasons.
"You get people who say 'well, it's not the economics: we need to be in there politically' and I think that is very dangerous.
"If people can't tell you what exchange rate they want to join at; they can't tell you what we should do if we have the wrong interest rates and have the idea that we should take an economic gamble for political reasons just so they can go to certain meetings in Brussels, that is a very dangerous idea."
Who's right? Anyone inside the eurozone who wants to get out? Or outside who wants to get in?
- Mark Mardell
- 4 May 08, 09:07 PM
A beaming new Boris smiles out and salutes from many a European newspaper, but I don't think they are giving his victory the space that they should.
Some of the international media have their own particular take, like this in the Azerbaijan press: "Boris Johnson is Turkish-origin British. He is great grandson of last interior minister of the Ottoman Empire Ali Kemal."
But it's not Boris's origins but the omens that matter to Europe.
It's not that the European press will be awaiting the unzipping of Boris's lips or waiting on tenterhooks for future follies to see if he will feed what he calls the "Hyrcanian tigers" of the media with frank and forthright views.
Not when we have the new mayor of Rome declaring the return of the Falange.
Nor is the significance that Britain has embraced a political power structure more common on the continent and across the Atlantic.
Here, city bosses are real powers in the land and their party. Indeed, in many places you need a local power base to make it on the national stage.
The Tony effect
It was, of course, Tony what done it.
Blair wanted to reinvigorate local politics with charismatic individuals and engage the voters.
This contest was the first in Britain for an age where both contenders were known by their first name, so he's done it in spades.
It'll be interesting to see in the future if a successful run as mayor impels the occupant into a top cabinet job or the party leadership.
Indeed, I would keep a close eye on what Ken does next.
It's not that Boris has passionate views on Europe. Indeed, although he's more famous for going to Eton, he went to the European School here in Brussels for a while, when his dad (later a Tory MEP) was working for the commission.
Later, as the Telegraph's man in Brussels, his witty dispatches hammered home the idea of a wasteful and bureaucratic European Union in the British public's mind.
But Boris's victory, along with the local election results, mean a great deal for the European Union.
I don't agree with Le Monde that "after Italy, Britain" turns to the right and that it's a sea change for the whole of Europe. The victory of the Spanish socialists could point in the opposite direction and anyway New Labour is further to the right (whatever that means these days) than many alleged parties of the right in Europe.
But Spain's El Pais has it right: proclaiming that David Cameron is on course for Downing Street.
During my years as a political correspondent, I would hedge ever prediction with caution. You have to when watching a story close up and following every twist and turn. During an election campaign you have to suspend, if not disbelief, a degree of common sense judgment in order to treat the parties fairly.
But my long view from Brussels is that the combination of a worsening economy, a sense of "time for a change", a restless media, a fixed public image of an inept Prime Minister combined with some really clunky decision making, and it is very difficult to see how Labour can win the next election.
Cameron and the EU
If David Cameron becomes the next British Prime Minister, it could mean a profound change in the relations with the European Union. Although he clearly doesn't want Europe to be one of the high profile campaign issues, it will be forced up the agenda.
If the Lisbon treaty is signed and sealed before a Conservative victory, some Conservatives, including the shadow foreign secretary, will not regard this as the end of the matter.
As I've written before, it will be one of David Cameron PM's first big decisions whether to occupy the first months of his first term with a high profile battle about Britain's place in the European Union, or whether to disappoint supporters.
Next year will tell us much. Mr Cameron tried to form a new political grouping within the European Parliament last year and failed.
He has promised that there will be one next year, in time to fight the European elections in the autumn. Here's the argument for such a group from one of its the main supporters.
That contest will be, perhaps rightly, seen through a Westminster prism and what It means for the general election the following year.
But hard questions will be asked about the Conservatives approach to Europe, Labour will be desperate to re-ignite the old Tory civil war and the tone of the campaign will tell us much about Cameron's approach to the European Union: something that could be decisive for his first few months In office If he does become prime minister.
- Mark Mardell
- 30 Apr 08, 12:01 AM
The French President nearly upset the EU apple-cart when he proposed a Mediterranean Union including EU and non-EU countries around that sea.
How far will the Poles go when they make proposals for a similar Baltic-to-the-Black-Sea Union?
The idea was a little noticed result of the European Council meeting back in March.
Then, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk suggested that if Turkey and the countries of North Africa could link up with the EU countries bordering the Med, it was only fair the East should have the same opportunities.
He was given the go-ahead, perhaps to both balance President Sarkozy's brainwave, and perhaps to further down-grade it. Perhaps a rather brutal move, as it had already been thoroughly and efficiently eviscerated by Chancellor Merkel.
Polish diplomats do not see their plan as ambitious as the Mediterranean, but argue that if the French, Italian, Spanish and Greeks can link up with countries in North Africa and negotiate with the rest of the European union as a bloc, then they should be allowed to do the same alongside Georgia and Ukraine.
I presume the link-up would be between the 10 former communist countries of the East and those six in the relevant European neighbourhood policy.
As far as I know, there will be no invitation to Russia to join this would-be new power bloc.
The Poles point out that at the moment they, and the EU members in the region, can only talk to the European Union as individual nations.
The suggestion is those next to the Med would get an unfair advantage. Part of this is no doubt "there's gold in them there hills": such an organisation would of course get more EU money for the region.
More cash is a reasonable goal in itself, but I wonder about the consequences.
Sometimes countries do argue within the European Union as regional blocs, but more often they don't.
Mr Tusk's report, to be presented to the other leaders in June, is probably of not much moment in itself but is it the beginning of a trend?
And would that trend be a dangerous undermining of EU solidarity, or a realistic recognition of other identities and alliances ?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~52~RS~)