The objections to Jean-Claude Juncker becoming president of the European Commission fall broadly into two types. One is about whether Juncker is the right person for the job. The other is which institution – the European Council or the European Parliament – should decide who is nominated to the presidency of the Commission.

Into the first category fall the objections to Juncker on personal grounds: that he did not perform well during the eurozone crisis; that he has lost his grip; that he is irascible; that he is too much a federalist; as well as the whispers that he drinks (and smokes) too much.

Then there are objections, still in the first category, to what Juncker represents. That, when prime minister of Luxembourg, he defended banking secrecy and harboured those who wanted to evade tax. That, as chairman of the Eurogroup, he was an embodiment of austerity during the eurozone crisis, and contributed to the lax governance that preceded it. That he is redolent of the EU of yesteryear. That he is the product of a cosy alliance between centre-right and centre-left.

However, for several members of the European Council, what matters more than Juncker’s track record or his personal attributes is their attitude to how the appointment of the Commission presidency should proceed.

Click Here: cheap sydney roosters jersey

Those who champion the Spitzenkandidaten competition, between rival candidates put forward by the main European political families, believe that since Juncker was the candidate of the party that won most seats in the European Parliament, then he must be nominated.

For them, it is more important that the Spitzenkandidaten process be pursued to its end than who that process throws up as president. Some members of the European Council believe they cannot ignore what they perceive as the expressed will of the voters.

That argument does not persuade those who doubt that the voters were aware of the Spitzenkandidaten. And there are many who never truly signed up to the Spitzenkandidaten contest anyway – Angela Merkel among them.

For her, it is important that the European Council decides who should nominate the Commission president.

Equally, there are ranged against Merkel many MEPs who want Juncker nominated precisely because they have adopted him as the choice of the Parliament. So choosing Juncker would set a precedent that the Parliament decides. That seems to be part of the explanation for how swiftly the centre-left MEPs swung behind Juncker last week. Winning the struggle between the Parliament and the European Council for the right to nominate is more important than who is nominated.

It is clear that Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, like Merkel is anxious to preserve the prerogatives of the Council. For him, the Council should nominate, albeit after consulting widely with the Parliament. His challenge now is to find an outcome that can be presented that way, without stretching credulity.

Both Merkel and Van Rompuy have left themselves with room to swing behind a Juncker nomination if necessary, even if that is not what Merkel most wants. David Cameron, on the other hand, has left himself with no room for manoeuvre: the nomination of Juncker would be an undeniable defeat.