Jean-Claude Juncker affair exposes deeper EU problems When Jean-Claude Juncker was first put forward for the presidency of the European Commission, Britain's voters and political leaders were united in their opposition. In this country, such an unreconstructed paleo-federalist seemed to represent everything that had gone wrong with Brussels. To make matters worse, Mr Juncker's own credentials were distinctly suspect - there were reports of a chaotic management style, rumours of an alcohol problem and a consensus that he would have been far better suited to running the European Council, the job currently held by Herman Van Rompuy. The reason the Luxembourger's appointment went through, despite the private qualms of many EU leaders, is that the federalist process had a momentum of its own. The European Parliament decided to ignore the myriad national factors governing May's European elections, instead proclaiming them a continent-wide contest between two candidates from within its largest blocs. This pair then engaged in a ludicrous series of campaign rallies and debates which were largely ignored by the electors. Once Mr Juncker emerged with what passes in Brussels for a popular mandate, the parliament was determined to consolidate its power grab - even asserting its right to vet and reject the rest of the new commission. Mr Juncker, therefore, was not chosen because he was in any way the best man for the job, but because his selection furthered the integrationist project. That decision has predictably rebounded. EU leaders were already aware that Mr Juncker's time as Luxembourg's leader coincided with its becoming a home for many large corporations seeking to minimise their tax bills - uncomfortable in itself, given the focus in Brussels on tax harmonisation, and within the G20 (which meets this weekend in Brisbane, with Mr Juncker in attendance) on stamping out tax avoidance. Now it has emerged that the deals offered to those companies, in particular pre-emptive promises to cap levies at a certain level, may have breached the rules. The whole affair exposes the problems and contradictions at the heart of the EU. Mr Juncker was allowed to bang the drum for Europe, while allegedly flouting the letter and spirit of its rules at home. Brussels now finds itself lumbered with a leader lacking the legitimacy, popularity, authority or even inclination to impose the reforms that are sorely needed - but will probably stick with him because it will be too much trouble to find anyone else. And Mr Juncker and others will doubtless continue to lecture Britain as to why it is so misguided in objecting to the European project's many failings.