The nominees for senior roles are sensible choices but the horse-trading that gets them into post reveals tensions at the heart of the European project

The method for filling the senior roles in the apparatus of the European Union is not an obvious advertisement for the project. National leaders go into conclave and emerge with nominees whose connection to citizens of member states feels tenuous.

The outcome inevitably represents a complex, multilateral compromise. The new European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, is a German Christian Democrat who was few people’s first choice but proved less distasteful than rivals to various caucuses. The same is true of Charles Michel, the Belgian prime minister, who replaces Donald Tusk as president of the European council. Christine Lagarde, currently leading the IMF, will be head of the European Central Bank, and Josep Borrell, Spain’s foreign minister, is teed up for the role of high representative for foreign affairs.

That two of the top four are women helps to redress an imbalance that has plagued EU institutions. Less welcome is the fact that all are from the western side of the continent. This looks like “old Europe” keeping a grip on institutions to the exclusion of countries that acceded later. There is already a cultural divide between early adopters of the European project – who see themselves as curators of its founding ideals – and later entrants, who are more suspicious of integration. Putting Ms Von der Leyen at the commission and Ms Lagarde at the ECB also bolsters the Franco-German axis already seen as the EU’s most powerful diplomatic channel. Smaller countries feel poorly served.

None of the big four was originally promoted as Spitzenkandidat – the lead candidate adopted by parties – in European elections. There is no legal or treaty obligation to give top jobs to Spitzenkandidaten, but the system does represent the aspiration to connect commission appointments to an electoral process, and its failure this time looks like a retreat for pan-continental democratisation. The counter-view is that the system simply moved the location of stitch-up to party machines and the timing of the horse-trading to before the election, which is hardly more democratic.

In the past, such frustrations have had a way of working themselves out in subsequent commissioner nominations and MEP confirmations. But these are fractious times for a union that is challenged by Donald Trump’s trade confrontations, a meddlesome Kremlin, and xenophobic populism capturing the mainstream in some member states. In such conditions, the sight of a Brussels power elite sharing out top jobs makes the whole project seem defensive and remote, which in turn brings doubt on the legitimacy of policy decisions taken at the highest level. That is before any common agenda can be sustained to deal with the climate emergency, big tech regulation, migration, and economic rivalry with China – huge challenges for the next commission. And, of course, Brexit is still unresolved.

The spectacle of Nigel Farage’s band of MEPs turning their backs on an opening ceremony for the European parliament this week was a reminder that petty-minded nationalism can have major strategic consequences. Mr Farage was once a marginal figure in Britain and a minor irritant in Brussels, but his relentless campaign to spread mischief and poison has wounded the project he despises. No other country is following the UK out of the EU, but many incubate their own variant strains of Faragism.

To shore up their integrity, the EU’s institutions need to be places where citizens’ interests are conspicuously represented, not impenetrable political labyrinths. There is always a tension between the need to manage decision-making in a multinational bloc, requiring old-fashioned haggling, and the principle of democratic accountability. There is also a growing tension between the urgency European leaders feel to find continental solutions to big strategic challenges – which encourages further integration – and the political reform agenda that should devolve power to the lowest level possible. The true test of the new commission and council presidents will be whether they understand that balance, and how capable they are of communicating it not just inside but beyond corridors in Brussels.