How to run Europe

Surely we don't want to be run by Malta, writes Roland Rudd, the founding chairman of Business for New Europe:

If you want an analogy that illustrates one particularly odd element of the EU, consider what it would be like to have a rotating editorship of The Daily Telegraph. It would change every six months, to allow all the paper's journalists a shot at the top job. And while we are playing at equality, let's ensure the paper does not take a clear line on any big foreign issue of the day, and instead gives the title of foreign editor to anyone who wants it. "Not a good way to run a newspaper," I hear you say. And how right you are. Nor is it a blueprint to run a company, or any organisation, including the EU. So why are plans to end such an anachronism, by having a full-time president, being met with howls of protests? Is not an elected presidency (renewable every 30 months) preferable to a six-month rotating one between all member states?

Take Malta. I am a great fan of the place, and spent many happy summers there as a child, but I am left wondering what the island state can achieve in its half-year presidency. The same goes for many of the smaller member states. There is even a limit to what the large member states, such as Britain, can achieve for the EU in a mere six months. And while it has no foreign policy representative, the EU will lack the clarity of thought and purpose to influence world opinion at a time when confidence in American foreign policy is at an all-time low. The argument against these proposals is fairly prosaic. Out comes the Euro-sceptics' canard that it would transfer power to Brussels and must therefore be vehemently opposed. It was the same when Margaret Thatcher signed up to the Single European Act (1986), and more markedly when John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty (1992).

Another thin end of the wedge argument is that, if you allow these changes to go forward, who knows where it will end? In fact, the Euro-sceptics do say where it will end: in a European super-state. To be fair to them, the last time changes were being proposed to the way the EU is run, it was as part of a new constitution that contained some things which many agree were superfluous and unwarranted - the charter of fundamental rights (which carried a danger of jeopardising Britain's labour market) - and other things that smacked of empire-building - such as a new European flag and anthem. Another proposal that raised anxiety levels was the idea of the constitution replacing all existing EU treaties.

This time, the proposed changes to the constitution are likely to be contained in a treaty focused on simplifying and streamlining the decision-making process in a union that has grown to 27 member states and clearly needs to update its institutions and procedures to reflect its size. A better voting structure for example, called double-majority voting, would make voting weights in the European Council proportionate to population. This would allow a measure to pass if 55 per cent of member states voted for it, provided they represented 65 per cent of the EU's population. The effect would be to rebalance the voting weights, so that larger states were fairly represented. Those who call for Britain to exert greater influence in the EU will be reassured by an increase in voting weight of 45 per cent from the present position...