It is so easy to get exasperated with the European Union – its lack of ambition, its multiple co-ordination failures, its notorious ability to disappoint. And was not last week's nomination of Herman Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton to the two big jobs created by the Lisbon treaty further proof of the EU's tendency to settle for the lowest common denominator? Have we wasted a unique chance of global leadership by not appointing Tony Blair or some other star, or at least somebody whose name we know how to spell?

I think not. On the contrary, the Belgian prime minister and the British European commissioner were among the better candidates for the two jobs of president of the European Council, and high representative for foreign policy. I am not saying this because I know these two politicians better than most of my colleagues. I do not. I am saying this because I have a different interpretation of the challenges facing the EU in the next decade. And this implies a very different job definition. In particular, I do not accept the prevailing view that Europe's fundamental problem is one of representation and communication – the type of problem Mr Blair would have been suited to solve.

The three fundamental problems of today's EU are: an inability to set precise policy goals; poor follow-through; and perhaps most importantly, poor co-ordination and crisis management.