The affair, which has already been reported by EUobserver, concerns the British firm G4S-UK, which, contrary to expectations, won a 10 million euro contract with the European External action Service to protect EU staff and premises in Libya. Rue89 remarks that the deal raised eyebrows because, unlike its competitors in the call for tenders, the Hungarian firm Argus and the British Canadian Garda World, G4S-UK “had no track record of protecting European delegations”.

The French news website argues that the affair highlights a problem of conflict of interest in the EEAS, which is managed by Britain’s Catherine Ashton –

Some [...] suspect Great Britain of misusing its influence in the EEAS to favour the main private military companies in the UK.

The unknowns concern the willingness of the new president to cut spending ... and also François Hollande's ability to change his position on Eurobonds and alter the role of the ECB.

However, Anne-Marie Le Gloannec, says "some compromises seem possible: the treaty [the fiscal pact] will not be renegotiated but rather, they will agree a pact on structural growth, both for Europe and for France, which François Hollande has already broadly sketched."

The two leaders will "become closer", adds La Croix, saying -

Principles first: in a united Europe, nothing is possible if France and Germany disagree. Pragmatism, too... The political crisis in Greece means that we cannot afford to get lost in quarrels over principle. A little realism is required about the inner workings of each country.

From the German perspective, Süddeutschte Zeitung asks  -

Is this the end of the Franco-German partnership? Not at all! Hollande will be moderate, Merkel will move. ... François Hollande does not have the vision of Napoleon or Mitterrand.

In another comment piece, the daily adds that François Hollande is -

a new chance for Merkel. [They] will be remembered as the people who ensured the survival of the euro or who masterminded its demise. They are forced to succeed from their first meeting. This pressure should give hope to all of Europe.

The main reason for this vote, European Voice says, is the announcement on May 9, of the departure of the president of the EFSA, Diana Bánáti, who stepped down to-

rejoin the board of the International Life Sciences Institute Europe (ILSI), a research and advocacy group. MEPs had asked the European Court of Auditors to investigate alleged conflicts of interest at EFSA, including Bánáti's links to the food industry.

Parliament's decision was welcomed by Monica Macovei (European People’s Party), a Parliamentary rapporteur for financial practice in 2010, who is often praised for her role in the fight against corruption. "Transparency and proper management of conflicts of interest have become vital for governance and for citizens. They must become an important criterion in budgetary expenditure procedure for all EU institutions,” she told the Bucharest-based daily România liberă.

European Voice adds, "The three agencies have until September to provide fuller explanations of their spending in 2010, with the Parliament voting later in the autumn on whether to approve or reject their accounts.”

Le Figaro lists the facts that will inevitably lead to a show of force between Angela Merkel and the French President-elect:

Berlin is clearly irritated by the Hollande team's repeated calls to renegotiate the fiscal pact in order to add a section on growth. Seeking to reassure the chancellor's entourage on this point, advisors to the socialist candidate hinted that these were just 'campaign promises'.

The chancellor knows that François Hollande's situation does not allow for much room for manoeuvre and that he will "seek to impose himself at all cost in order to score points," Le Figaro writes –  

Yet she should not yield on the obligation to sign the treaty as is, even if it is resubmitted later. It would thus be up to the French president-elect to take the first step and to sign the pact as it is. A move that would be counter to the campaign waged against austerity in Europe.

Nonetheless, notes Le Figaro, the two leaders have some points in common. "The only good surprise, when the chancellor greets the French president-elect in Berlin, could be that of a meeting" between two leaders who have demonstrably "normal and humble personalities".

Far from being anecdotal, this personal link is the foundation of trust which allows Paris and Berlin to overcome their differences. This could lead to a consensus that would draw Europe along in the wake of the Franco-German team. If Hollande and Merkel get off on the right foot, everything is possible.

In Berlin, the Tageszeitung has strong doubts that François Hollande will get very far with his plans to favour growth. Certainly, the paper notes, several Brussels heavyweights eyeing José Manuel Barroso's post as EU Commission chair, such as Martin Schulz, president of the Euro Parliament and Viviane Reding, the vice-chair of the Commission, were quick to agree with Hollande by pleading for a growth pact. However,

...in the end, this is a classic Brussels compromise. A hand is extended to the new arrivals to better draw them in. For Brussels, a totally watered-down growth pact is very attractive because it would leave Chancellor Angela Merkel's budget pact unchanged. It would probably not even frighten the markets. That way everyone is satisfied: Merkel and Hollande, the citizens and the markets. MEP Elmar Brok (CDU) sums up the views of many European political leaders, saying, 'by June at the latest, Hollande should be back in line'.

Germany's leadership is thus not about to dim and, reinforced by the support of the markets, the free-market rhetoric from Brussels and Berlin resists change, TAZ says. Add to that the Greek crisis and

...the June EU summit could once again become a Greek summit, uniting Merkel and Hollande. As to what will become of the socialist's platform, heaven only knows.

Paraphrasing the words of John F. Kennedy, the signatories call –

on the European Commission and national governments, together with the European Parliament and national parliaments, to create a Europe "of actively employed citizens", and to create the financial and legal conditions for the establishment of a "Year of European voluntary service for everyone", as a counter-model to the “top-down” approach currently prevailing in Europe – a Europe of elites and technocrats. The goal is to democratise national democracies and to rebuild Europe behind the rallying cry: "Ask not ask what Europe can do for you, but what you can do for Europe – Make Europe!"

Wishing for "ordinary European citizens to come together to be their own bosses”, the authors of the document describe it as “an organic, naturally-occurring act” through which Europe will develop a new constitution “from the bottom up”.

In addition to the possible loss of traditional stalwarts France and Netherlands (the Dutch government resigned following a row over austerity), Merkel’s fiscal discipline creed came under fire yesterday as ECB chairman Mario Draghi declared that fiscal consolidation cannot be achieved through cuts and taxes alone, and requires “structural measures to favour economic growth”.

Resuming this position with “More courage for growth” as headline, the Turin daily notes that -

While waiting for the French election verdict Merkel paid heed to Draghi, finally coming to a formal acknowledgment that 'we need growth, to be sustained through structural reforms.'

The rise of the far right shows that many countries are still unable to offer an appropriate response to simplistic solutions proposed by populists. Voters continue to be unaffected by the language of the EU and national governments, but they are more than willing to accept the populists’ facile slogans.

On a more pragmatic level, this trend is bad news for Angela Merkel, as Süddeutsche Zeitung points out –

The fall of the Rutte administration in the Netherlands is a bitter blow for the German government, which has lost a major ally in the drive for more austerity. And Angela Merkel could soon lose her most powerful supporter. The French President has lost the first round of voting in the presidential election to challenger François Hollande [...]. Many Spaniards are crossing their fingers in the hope for a socialist win in France. [...] And a similar sentiment prevails in Italy. With this in mind, the amount of time attributed to the two countries to reduce their spending will not change much.

In the letter Claude Gueant and Hans-Peter Friedrich suggest that suspension of the Schengen treaty is justified where security is insufficient at some of the EU external borders, and to address internal security matters and safeguard national sovereignty, the Munich daily writes.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung adds that the resumption of border monitoring would aim to combat economic migration, and suggests this could foster anti-European political sentiment –

What is the value of it, open borders without restrictions? [...] What is the point of freedom of movement if European governments are able to limit it? If member states withdraw into their national territory when there are problems, they are demonstrating that they believe their small nation state is far better than Europe. In this case we should not be surprised if nationalist parties, populist and the extreme right are on the rise throughout Europe. The temporary closure of internal borders is a continuous advertisement for the enemies of Europe.

For years, Athens posted budget deficits below their real level due to falsified statistics. European Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, Algirdas Šemeta, suggests revising national statistics to make them more credible. He also suggests that national statistics agencies should be independent and that their heads should be appointed on criteria other than political. According to the paper -

They will have to decide independently as concerns the development, the production and the dissemination of the statistics as well as the management of the work of the statistics agencies.

Each member state will have to adopt, "at the highest political level," a European Statistics Code of Practices, Adevărul explains. This document will be countersigned by the Commission and Eurostat will be responsible for making sure the commitments are respected. The demand for reliable, credible, evidence-based data is growing, in particular because of the need to coordinate economic policies in the EU.

Yes, because the new European Fiscal Compact is fundamental if Germany and other northern European countries are willing to strengthen protection and rescue mechanisms for the eurozone. And no, because the treaty establishes rules that are almost impossible to fulfill on a regular basis, even by the states now imposing them.

The Expresso editorial adds that –

... this will at best serve to ensure the commitment and solidarity of the strongest countries to the countries rescued or at risk. (...) And will show that the eurozone can move on without leaving countries behind. And to enforce budgetary discipline on countries that have almost always ignored it.

In an opinion article published in the same weekly, sociologist Pedro Adão e Silva warns that the consequences of this treaty are evident –

If the Treaty is to be taken seriously, the least developed member states will be deprived of the economic policy mechanisms that make recovery possible, while continuing to lack the desirable financial instruments, characteristic of the federal system. In the end, we alienate sovereignty, without any compensation.

Bulgaria’s foreign minister, Nikolai Mladenov, stresses that the two countries have been discussing the territorial delimitation of the Black Sea for over 20 years. "The subject does not constitute any problem in bilateral relations between the two countries," he said, as quoted by the Bulgarian press, which nevertheless expresses "surprise" that the dispute should suddenly crop up.

On the other side of the Danube, this "timing" comes as no surprise to Adevărul -

The part of the continental shelf in dispute is that which is expected to carry the South Stream pipeline [project led by Russia]. If the outcome is favourable for Bucharest, Romania would gain a few square metres of the Turkish continental shelf, which would be an advantage in the event that the Nabucco project [the rival South Stream pipeline, supported by the EU] is decided on.

Romania’s chief diplomat, Cristian Diaconescu, wants to calm things down -

Nobody should get upset or angry. These are areas of national interest for both states, and these issues have to be resolved, because problems of exploitation and concessions may suddenly come up.

... create a kind of 'club' committed to developing formulas that, in these times of crisis, will revive the ideal of a united Europe.

The group, which is scheduled to meet at least four more times, will discuss such issues as increased cooperation of fiscal and economic policies, efforts to stabilise growth and the euro, as well as border controls and security policies. The group will present its conclusions in a final document.

ABC notes that on March 9, during an informal meeting of European Foreign Ministers, Guido Westerwelle –

... was in favour of reopening the discussion on the need for a European Constitution, but there is no consensus on the subject among the 27 [member states].

His call received qualified support from France and another eight countries which have agreed to join talks in how to relaunch the project.

The other countries ready to Mr Westerwelle’s plans are, among others, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain. The Times notes that –

The plan has been criticised as premature by Sweden and Italy’s technocratic government and dismissed by the Foreign Office in London.

According to Sweden’s foreign minister Carl Bildt –

I do not think the priority in the European Union at the moment is to start a new constitutional debate.

According to several senior officials privy to the talks, the political bargain involved Michel Barnier, the French commissioner for the internal market and scourge of the UK Treasury, replacing the UK’s Baroness Ashton as the European Union’s foreign policy chief.

The London daily reveals that the reshuffle plan was developed with the team of Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, but enthusiasm waned due to fear that the European parliament would resist the move. A spokesman for Barroso, however, has denied the plan, saying the EC president “never had and never does have the intention to propose this change”. This said –

… several people involved say the Commission reshuffle was a serious and credible option during the intense diplomatic activity before the December summit. The British “were handed Barnier’s head on a plate”, one person said.

The Financial Times notes that –

The removal of Mr Barnier would have been cheered by many in the City and Westminster but some UK officials concluded that it would have amounted only to a temporary reprieve. Mr Cameron instead tried and failed to ensure that permanent guarantees to protect financial services were written into the new treaty.

This unpleasant surprise has put pressure on the coalition formed by the liberal VVD and Christian democratic CDA with external support from the populist and anti-European PVV: the PVV has already indicated that it will not toe the line imposed by Brussels. In short, as the De Volkskrant headline points out, the Dutch government is faced with “an infernal task”.

For its part, NRC Handelsblad explains that “the government has been shackled by two chains” that leave very little room for manoeuvre: on the one hand there is the “European outlook”, and on the other, “the economic outlook”. With this in mind, the daily adds that the hard-nosed attitude displayed by “the government and in particular Finance Minister Jan Kees de Jager (CDA)” with regard to the most indebted countries in the eurozone will put the administration in an awkward position -

It will almost certainly have no alternative but to swallow the harsh medicine that it has imposed on other countries. […] Eastern countries are hardly likely to be sympathetic and those in the South will be overcome by malicious joy.

This situation will be compounded by the fact that the Netherlands will not be able to count on much in the way of understanding from the Commission. As De Volkskrant notes, the country has always supported Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn in his role as “an unforgiving schoolmaster” intent on imposing full respect for stability criteria, and this will still be the case even if other countries are in similar trouble -

Madrid is faced with a deficit of 8.5% which will have to be reduced to a maximum of 3% next year. For weeks, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has assailed Brussels with arguments designed to obtain more time for the consolidation of his public finances.

Finally, writing in the daily Trouw, columnist Rob de Wijk remarks that the Netherlands should stop trying to teach lessons to the “the garlic countries” (a Dutch nickname for the Southern European states) –

Of all of the rich European countries, the Netherlands is the worst off. The recession here is as bad as it is in the garlic countries that we have relentlessly and disdainfully found wanting.

I strongly believe that it is very much in Ireland’s national interest that this treaty be approved, as doing so will build on the steady progress the country has made in the past year.

Mindful that Ireland has rejected EU treaties in the past, first the Nice and Lisbon treaties in 2001 and 2008, then approved in 2002 and 2009 respectively, the Irish Times argues that in referendums “the people are wont to answer not the question put before them, but any other one preoccupying them at the time.” However, it applauds the Taoiseach for his “enthusiastic conviction that the people … will do the right thing.” Strongly pro-EU, the Dublin daily argues that -

…rejection would mean opening an appalling vista for this country. Because the treaty does not require all participating states to ratify it before coming into operation, an Irish No would leave this state behind as the rest of the euro zone moved ahead with closer integration. Ireland might remain formally a euro member, but, critically, outside the central decisionmaking core that has in effect already become the EU’s advance guard. Most importantly, a No would deprive Ireland of further access to the bailout mechanisms and cash, the protective shield which is crucial to our standing in the markets and our recovery.

For the Irish Examiner the nation must understand “the consequences of their vote and what their decision means for us and for our children.”

Those who would oppose it, rather than just reject it because they are justifiably angry about so many of the ugly, inequitable consequences of losing economic independence, must present a viable, alternative way of financing this bankrupt state. That must be the litmus test of any proposal other than ratification. This is a dilemma of absolutes — we’re either in or out no matter how unpalatable that limiting reality might be. It is hard to imagine that our European colleagues, so besieged by so many fronts, might demur and make special arrangements for a small member state so utterly dependent on EU financing no matter how draconian the terms attached to those loans.

Predicting that that the government will argue that a “No” vote will lead to a “terrifying outcome”, the Irish Independent notes that -

One small consolation is that the issue is easier to understand than the content and implications of the Maastricht or Lisbon treaties. Governments dishonestly claimed that these treaties did not matter very much. The feeling that the wool was being pulled over the electorate's eyes must have contributed to their defeat -- at least first time around. With a little effort, one can actually understand the fiscal compact. One can make an informed guess as to what might happen if the compact is rejected. […] The other great irony is that there is little in the fiscal compact which is not already in Irish law under last year's tightening of the eurozone rules, except, perhaps, the extra constitutional status.

The new architecture of the euro is threatened by a birth defect. In the end, perhaps only 16 states will be shackled to the austerity drive Germany wants to see.

Of course, Berlin would have preferred to avoid a popular vote on Europe in Ireland, writes Süddeutsche Zeitung –

... but this time around, the outcome will have a much greater impact on Ireland than it will on the euro community. […] The Irish should accept that the [fiscal] pact is in their national interest. If not we will not be able to help them.

That is why this vote will be more about Irish identity than it will be about the "golden rule", affirms Die Zeit.

According to Eurobarometer, the Irish are the most europhile population in the union. But their love of the EU is only equalled by their rejection of England: a way of underlining the fact that they are not British. The country will have to live with a decision that will mark the self image of an entire generation. Either they will become fully fledged Europeans and give up on an exceptional status to the west of the British Isles, or they will opt for an intermediate status like their British neighbours – which will mean that they will have more in common with the Anglo-Saxons, the Scots and the Welsh.

According to the daily, data from a poll of 500 people in three regions – Upper Austria, Lower Austria and Burgenland – demonstrates that the opening of borders, 20 years ago, is no longer perceived as a blow to stability in the country.

Tourism and trade have done much to improve cross-border relations, with “residents of neighbouring regions in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary mainly crossing the border to shop. The increase in trade has helped boost purchasing power in economically weak areas of Eastern Austria, and it is therefore not surprising that the local population feels that it has had a positive impact on the Labour market: 48% of those polled in Upper Austria, 40% in Burgenland, 36% in the area of Lower Austria next to Slovakia and 34% in the area of Lower Austria next to the Czech border remarked on “positive change” in the labour market.

The only negative point highlighted by the survey was a perception that crime prompted by more contact with the East is on the increase: an impression that Die Presse points out is not confirmed by the statistics.

The question comes up as to whether the government’s story is true – that this is a leftist-liberal conspiracy, and why is Hungary always the target?   [...] We must not forget that by joining the Union, we respect not only Community law but democratic values as well. [...]  For the moment, this motion has no legal consequences. Parliament has given enough time to the Hungarian government to act. We should make the most of it.

Unsurprisingly, Magyar Hirlap attacks the Hungarian socialist MEPs. In a commentary entitled “A mess of pottage,” Zsolt Bayer, journalist member of the Fidesz party of Victor Orbán, and personal friend of the latter, wonders -

How is it possible that there is a communist group within the European Parliament? [...] They are no better than the Nazis. [...] The behaviour of the Hungarian Socialists is unimaginable in any other country. During the sanctions against Austria at the time of Haider, for example, the leader of Austria’s Socialist Party called for the hounding of his country to stop.

According to the report, Bucharest and Sofia have made progress but the fight against corruption at the highest levels of the administration is still sluggish, especially in Romania, the paper notes. The report calls on Romania to make magistrates more accountable and to discourage corruption through the application of exemplary punishments and the confiscation of ill-gotten gains. The CVM also suggests the implementation of a national anti-corruption strategy and the exclusion from parliament of MPs or senators convicted of corruption. In spite of the progress achieved, Romanian Minister of European Affairs, Leonard Orban, told the paper that the Netherlands, the main opponent to the entry of Romania or Bulgaria into the Schengen Area, will not change its position until the CVM presents its final report this summer.

In Bulgaria, the release of the CVM report was overshadowed by reports on the inclement weather and the declaration of a day of national mourning to honnour the eight victims of flooding in the village of Bisser in southern Bulgaria. Nonetheless, on-line news site Medipool says the report is "very critical" of Bulgaria and highlights that, for the first time, there is no mention in the report of Sofia's "political will" to fight corruption and to implement the necessary judicial reforms.

Although largely unaided, the Chancellor has succeeded in imposing the fiscal compact on her European partners in just two months, but from now on, notes Spiegel Online, she will have to contend with “the nasty image of an austerity commissar,” who “stirs up fears of foreign domination in Europe.”

At issue is the proposal to send a budget commissar to Athens to oblige the Greeks to take control of their finances. Spiegel dubs the measure "political poison“, while Tagesspiegel describes it as "an admission of failure” that will give added fuel to the Nazi comparisons currently flourishing in Greece.

If only it was simply a matter of historical insensitivity, then Germany’s jab at the Greeks could be remedied by adroit diplomacy. But that is not the case. The proposal clearly illustrates that there is no longer any desire to preserve the monetary community. Now it is a matter of rich against poor and the strong against the weak. […] The Greeks already have to deal with the the EU/IMF/ECB troika, and they have no need of another interloper to do up their accounts on a blackboard. The aid package currently under discussion is supposed to strike a balance between reforms and growth. And as such, it will require plenty of money, time, and even more importantly, trust.

The Prague daily does not believe that the Brussels summit has prompted a division in Europe, but instead argues that the event has highlighted “different points of view on integration that will allow everyone to take up a position of their choosing.” As it stands -

... the Czech Republic will not be seated at the round table, or in the anteroom (...). It prefers to “listen” through the walls of a minuscule room, from which it will be difficult to influence the course of events in Europe.

Polish PM Donald Tusk insists that he is not “100% happy with the compromise”, but Poland will nevertheless sign the pact. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna paints a gloomy picture of this week’ summit, drawing the following conclusions-

Firstly, Europe has broken up. The fiscal pact is the founding act of the new EU, where non-euro countries will become second tier members. Secondly, it offers an excellent opportunity to do away with the myth that we [Poland] are hitched up to Germany and sucking up the benefits. Germany will not sacrifice its co-operation with France on the altar of Foreign minister Sikorski’s Berlin speech calling for more German leadership. Thirdly, we can congratulate France and Germany on conducting an effective policy with clearly defined national goals. We [Poland] just improvise.

... it's one thing to see sovereignty limited by special circumstances, as was the case recently in Portugal or Greece. It”s another to see political sovereignty treated as a minor problem.

Yet, as noted in French daily Le Monde, if the German proposal, revealed by the Financial Times, should be approved by the Member States at the European Council, then Greece -

... must also commit, in its budget, to 'use State revenues first and foremost to pay off the debt service,' that is to reimburse the interest on the borrowed funds. Finally, this renouncement of sovereignty, according to the document, would be 'fully' written into Greek national legislation, 'preferably through an amendment to the Constitution'.

In Athens, the proposal is raising hackles. “Nein, nein, nein”, headlines Greek daily Ta Nea sending a triple refusal to the demands of the German Chancellor regarding the sovereignty of the country; the loss of the thirteenth and fourteenth month of pay; and the minimum wage. The paper calls on -

... the government, political parties and labour unions [to] establish a strong negotiating front to face off with the country's creditors and auditors. To speak with a single voice, we must all put aside personal ambitions, party goals, rivalries between groups as well as electoral considerations. None of this will be worth anything if the struggle for national salvation is lost in the end.

In another Greek daily, To Ethnos, leader writer Georges Delastik protests against the German proposal which -

... cannot be considered as coming from a friendly country. The document recommends conditions dictated by a conqueror to an enslaved population and must be treated by the Greek people as a hostile attack by a state that wants to destroy Greek sovereignty just like the German Nazi attack of April 1941. [...] A German [Nazi officer] will decide to close schools and hospitals; and to no longer pay public employee salaries or pensions for several months. Contemptible, the Germans are preparing the path to lead the Greeks to famine, literally. [...] this document unveils the ugly side of the Eurozone and of the EU in the 21st Century.

In any case, says Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, this proposal is "a diversion for domestic use" because no commissioner can resolve the crisis. Drawing on the example of Othon I, the Bavarian prince who was made King of Greece from 1832 to 1862, the paper notes that -

We could debate that if the Greeks lived under Othon they might have an economic development comparable to that of Bavaria. But they would be as little debt-free as Bavaria is today. Because, as long as aid is flowing, even if all that is promised is not delivered, no commissioner coming from Brussels or Berlin will be able to repair the administration in Athens. It's enough to look at equalisation funding in Germany. The city of Berlin consumes, alone, the same millions as Bavaria without the federal government being able to push Berliners into changing one iota of their 'sexy', credit-fuelled lives. And this will continue as long as those who take outnumber those who give. It's the same thing in the EU. Only the truncheon of market interest rates or the credible threat of an ouster from the euro can force change.

Orbán “won the debate with his bitter critics,” remarks pro-government daily Magyar Hìrlap, which takes issue with-

… the MEPs of the IMF coalition who were briefed with material prepared by the opposition in Budapest. […] The Prime Minister refused to accept European diktats, but demonstrated that he is open to dialogue on all subjects. However, his European approach is of no interest to the ranks of the European faction of the IMF […] which speaks in a democratic voice, but is ruled by the law of the monetary fund.

Népszava devotes its front page to what it describes as “a dialogue of the deaf in Strasbourg.” For the opposition daily:

Orbán pretended not to understand the reasons why he has been criticised in Europe. […] As usual, he resorted to a mixture of demagogic platitudes and defence of the motherland.

“Everyone took political sides in a partisan debate,” regrets the newspaper, which highlighted the example of the support for Orbán voiced by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who deplored “the hysterical atmosphere in the European parliament on the question of Hungary.”

... on a struggle for power, attention, and a monopoly on the interpretation of the treaties that could fail and ridicule parliament or modify the structure of power in Brussels.

This view is shared by Financial Times Deutschland which, nonetheless, casts doubts on Schulz’s ability to carry out his "coups". For example, Schulz plans on actively participating in EU summits, starting with the negotiations on the fiscal package.

At the same time, he cannot speak only for his political group, but will have to represent all the MEPs: the nationalists along with the pro-Europeans, the left and the right, the federalists and the centralists. He will not be able to represent all of these opinions in the negotiations. [...] and that is not his role.

For its part, the Polish press pays homage to the outgoing president. Wprost points out that Jerzy Buzek adopted a strategy of avoiding direct confrontation, preferring to seek political compromises, and also demonstrated a considerable talent as a negotiator. He was the one to convince Václav Klaus to sign the Lisbon Treaty, and it was his visit to Moldova that contributed to the resolution of the governmental crisis and the establishment of a pro-European coalition.

He had his finger on the pulse of international politics and knew where and when to be. He spoke to Egyptian protesters at Cairo’s Tahrir Square and to Libyan rebels in Tripoli, who chanted ‘Thank you, Europe!

Although he was universally liked and respected, Wprost points out that Busek was also criticised for his strict political correctness and “procedural super-meticulousness.” However, at the end of the day, enthusiastically notes Gazeta Wyborcza, Buzek-

... certainly demonstrated that Polish politicians are suitable for top international roles.

The German and French leaders do not yet know where the money might come from to save Spain and Italy – should the need arise. Neither do they have an emergency plan for Greece (in case negotiations with creditors fail). They are afraid to recapitalise their banks and at the same time they are avoiding questions about what it means to bailout the ruined euro countries. Their strategy is a strategy for defeat.

This disappointment is shared by Spanish daily El País which, in a leader article, demands that the Merkozy duo moves beyond making speeches. The two leaders addressed the issue of means to create jobs and to reinforce growth. If we are to take them at their word, El Païs says-

... we are facing the birth of a new phase of European economic policy, until now focused on the single goals of austerity and sound public finances [...] If things do not change, the up-coming treaty will enshrine an unacceptable asymmetry between extreme fiscal discipline on one hand and, on the other, a common economic policy founded merely on words.