Editorial

Early in September the Swedish EU Affairs Minister Cecilia Malmstrom addressed the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee. She informed them that if the Lisbon Treaty were adopted at the October Summit - which it has not yet been - it could then get on with nominations to a number of new posts created by the Treaty. These include the President of the Council, the EU High Representative for foreign policy and new Commissioners to replace what has been, in effect, a caretaker Commission.

All this depended, as the Minister well knew, on the successful outcome of a second referendum in Ireland which would reverse that country's earlier "No" to Lisbon. That has happened. Matters threatened to be complicated by the refusal of the Czech President to ratify the Treaty, unless new conditions he wished to place on behalf of his country were met. This matter, too, has been resolved; some time before the end of the year, the Lisbon Treaty will become, in effect, the EU Constitution.

The journey from Rome via Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and now Lisbon has taken just over half a century. What started as a series of loosely conducted intergovernmental affairs has developed into an organisation scarcely recognisable from what was brought into existence by the Treaty of Rome. In 50 years' time, perhaps, our readers' great-grand children will be living in the United States of Europe (less Britain?).

Whether this will be a good thing, or a bad one, is not the purpose of this leader; it could be either and strong arguments can be rolled out in favour or against. Unless centralisation in Brussels takes on the aspect of a bureaucratic dictatorship, or, worse, disregards completely the democratic processes that should inform membership of this union and ideal, Malta will continue to argue that "ever closer union" based on respect for each member's integrity will be a beneficial experience.

The immediate concern now, as opposed to this long-term prospect, is to introduce 14 new members of the European Parliament (of which one is Maltese), set the ball rolling for the creation of a high-profile President and for what is being called a "foreign policy czar" with all the human and financial resources demanded by such a czardom, and for those member countries who have not already done so (Malta among them) to nominate their Commissioners.

In fact it is the first two appointments, more than anything else, that are concentrating minds in Brussels. Gordon Brown has touted Tony Blair for the job. The absence of any overwhelming evidence to suggest that the idea will receive the benediction of the majority of members - not to mention Germany's and France's almost frosty reception to it - has already shifted attention to other possible contestants.

In the sort of conspiracy environment that will probably characterise the selection of the new President - some grumble, not without justification, that here is another example of a non-democratic choice being made at the centre with no reference to the European electorate at large - it has been mooted that if Tony Blair cannot be President why cannot Britain's foreign secretary, David Milliband, be the EU's High Representative - a clumsy appellation for foreign minister?

All speculation. The wheels of Brussels turn in their own fashion; sometimes in strange circles. One thing is certain. We have travelled further down the path to "ever closer union".