Supporters and detractors of the Lisbon Treaty shared to some extent the view that it would mean a European Union newly powerful and assertive – and whether that is good or bad depended on each rival camp’s message. Ironically, the two people appointed to the most high-profile posts created by the treaty are seen instead as weak and ineffectual.

The announcement that the first European Council President under the treaty would be current Belgian prime minister Herman van Rompuy and the new-style foreign policy chief would be the UK’s Catherine Ashton brought scorn from all directions.

Wags weighed in as headline writers and editorial commentators engaged in an informal competition about who could be the most derisive about the appointments. China, one joke ran, had a president Hu. The EU would have a President Who?

The Financial Times editorialised that this had been a "pitiful exercise in Euro-minimalism", "a colossal failure of ambition". Many well-qualified candidates had not been considered, as the EU had failed to do what it should have, which was to abandon its method of parcelling out posts and instead pick the best people for the jobs. "That seems to be far too revolutionary," the Financial Times said.

In the Telegraph, William Langley described Van Rompuy and Ashton as "the EU’s perfect couple of nobodies", the Independent said that only "limp waves of polite puzzlement" had constituted international reaction, and Germany’s Der Spiegel said that the choice of what it described as "two competent but dull technocrats" had been an uninspired choice showing the determination of national leaders to hold on to power, and illustrated the limits of what currently is possible in the bloc.

"If the American president has an urgent matter to discuss with the EU in the future, whom will he call? Naturally someone in Berlin, London or Paris, as usual – but certainly no one in Brussels," Der Spiegel said.

Major politicians had avoided appointing anyone of standing lest having heavyweights in the new EU jobs would threaten their own status as global players.
Notably, reaction in several important capitals was muted or effectively non-existent. Russia issued a mild welcome through its foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov; nothing was heard from China or India’s governments; media in India hardly bothered to record the announcement.

Among the most damaging comments came from Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the former president of France who led the way to Europe’s new constitutional order, who likened the choice that the EU had faced to that which had been faced by the newly-independent United States. The fledgling US had chosen George Washington, the victor in the war of independence: "I would have preferred a strong president corresponding to this profile," d’Estaing said.

Surprise package?
More than a decade ago, an international television campaign for Brussels advertised it as the "surprise package of Europe".
Amid the sneering reports, notably in the UK press, which extended their disdain for the appointments to a general (and highly unjustified) beastliness towards Belgium, little was heard from voices that suggested that appointing superstars and super-heroes to the two posts was not the only option.

Van Rompuy, whom no one failed to point out has the hobby of writing haikus and is a devout Roman Catholic who goes on regular retreats – as if either of these was somehow either laughable or sinister – at least has a track record of negotiating the complexities of Belgian politics and thus some understanding of holding together an unwieldy entity.

This argument in favour of Van Rompuy may offer as a basis the fact that the treaty gives the European Council President a consensus-building role, and detractors’ claims that "even in Belgium no one has heard of him" may be a tribute to his political navigational skills.

This does not necessarily alleviate concerns that he may be the EU’s answer to United Nations Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon, who in recent months has been criticised as ineffectual, lacklustre and lacking the presence of his predecessors (his defenders have cited his supposed effectiveness behind closed doors). Nor, in fact, is the EU’s biggest worry getting the bloc’s point of view across to the UN; the bloc needs – so Van Rompuy’s detractors argue – someone who can go toe-to-toe with the leaders of Russia, China, India and the United States.

Then again, there is every evidence that Van Rompuy has a personality, and a strong one, accompanying strong views: Turkey in the EU? No, according to previously reported statements. An EU-level tax on its 500 million citizens? Yes, according to a series of statements, most recently after he was appointed. In a job that will be in part what he makes of it, the Van Rompuy package may not be everyone’s idea of a nice surprise.

Could Ashton be what Van Rompuy may not, the strong face of Europe? Derided as never having held elected office, notwithstanding her diverse CV, regarded with disappointment for that CV lacking no pure foreign policy experience, Ashton – some sources have suggested – is a "quick learner". Put kindly, however, whoever got a job in charge of a large and growing EU foreign service, with a huge budget to go with it, should at very least be a quick learner.

After Van Rompuy and Ashton take office on December 1, as the treaty takes effect, the long-term question "who won?" will apply not only to the internal dynamics of the EU, but to its place in the world in relation to capitals against which, to put this bluntly, it is in competition.