Tempers are still frayed in the Berlaymont this week. Nerves are still raw and noses not yet quite back into joint following what was probably the most ill-tempered working lunch of Europe’s leaders for a long time.
Despite the earnest agenda that had been prepared, the heads of government from the EU’s 27 Member States had to restrain themselves from turning the European Council lunch into a bun fight.
Instead of using the opportunity to flesh out the EU’s foreign policy post-Lisbon or develop new measures on economic governance following the Euro-crisis, the lunch, according to the FT, instead turned “into a blustery spat” over France’s expulsion – or voluntary relocation scheme - of Roma.
Put simply, the European Commission believes this contravenes the sacred cows of free movement for EU nationals and non-discrimination of EU nationals. The Roma that were sent back to Romania are EU nationals and the Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship – and Vice President of the Commission to boot, Madame Viviane Reding is on the warpath.
At first, the formidable Mme Reding was measured in her response to President Sarkozy’s initiative to offer money to Roma who had set up camps in France. It was when she claimed to have found out that the French Government were being “duplicitous” in what they had been telling the Commission, she went nuclear. The Commission Vice President said that the policy was worthy of Vichy France.
This did not go down too well in Paris. President Sarkozy bounded into Brussels last week for the Council Summit looking for a show-down with the Commission – something which always plays well at home.
Sarkozy slammed Viviane Reding for her "deeply shocking" and "insulting" comments. However, he couldn’t help himself from going further. He suggested that perhaps Luxembourg – Mme Reding’s Member State – would want to accommodate Roma travellers. This only undermined his position that France was well within its rights and that it was an infringement of national sovereignty to order the Government to change policy that had been designed to crack down on crime and disorder.
Although President Barroso tried to quell the dispute, he was forced to defend his Vice President when President Sarkozy harangued him in front of EU leaders. The result? Mme Reding apologised only for the Vichy remark. President Barroso stood his ground on the substantive allegations that were levelled at the French Government.
President Sarkozy was publicly isolated. He had failed to rally any political support from his European colleagues. It was a shame that serious issues around economic governance and EU foreign policy were sidelined.
However some fundamental principles were re-established. The Council President Herman Van Rompuy concluded that the European Commission has the responsibility of overseeing the application of EU law in the areas of freedom of movement and non-discrimination.
Another positive result for the Commission was an invitation from the Summit to the Commission to write the strategy for Roma travellers.
As for M. Sarkozy, he was sent back to the Palace Elysee with his tail between his legs, facing the prospect of Mme Reding taunting him with infringement procedures for contravening EU laws.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Another Day, Another Euro
There has been some ill-informed nonsense written about the Euro since Greece was bailed out with the help of Eurozone members.
Some economists, who should know better, claimed that the crisis would spread to other vulnerable euro countries like Italy and Spain; that these countries would have no choice but to leave the single currency and that even Germany might walk away and start printing Deutschmarks again.
However, the Euro is much stronger than that - and is designed to withstand such shocks. It can, of course, be improved by enforcing strict deficit rules and by creating, which it now is, an emergency bail-out fund. What does not need to happen is any so-called economic governance. National budgets should not be subject to ECOFIN approval and tax policy should remain a useful competitive tool not be remotely part of any european fiscal union. The European Central Bank however does need to be more political in interest rate decisions and take into account more inflationary pressures in a Euro member state that is struggling. But thats as far as it goes.
I resisted joining in the clamour for quick fix solutions and rather stood back and watch the debate burn itself out. The Greek crisis has been dealt with and the Euro moves on
I read with interest some opinion polls which shows that two thirds of voters noe believe the EU is more relevant than ever following the financial crisis. thsi is remarkable considering no-one particularly liked being asked to bail out the Greek system as though it were some kind of perverse award for their fecklessness.
It was unfortunate that UK Deputy PM used the excuse of the Greek financial crisis as the reason why he changed his mind on the urgency of austere deficit cuts. Regardless, none of this of course excuses the fact that he campaigned to win Lib Dem votes without telling his voters that he had changed his mind.
What is also strange is that the Conservatives did not join on the bandwagon and launch a tirade against the Euro just when it was at its weakest. Perhaps this can be explained by the realisation that a weakened EU was not in the UK's interests. david Cameron himself said so during a visit to Paris shortly after becoming Premier.
Observers are mystified as to just how muted Cameron, Hague and Osborne have been on Europe - especially when there is a real chance to put the boot in.
The junior coalition partners can be credited for keeping the eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives reined in but how long can this last? At a Progress meeting in the House of Commons, chaired by the new MP for Wolverhampton, Emma Reynolds, Labour Party members came together to find ways of putting a wedge in the coalition on the issue of Europe. While every-one agreed that Europe is not a priority for voters, it is the coalition's achille's heel. Although there is no sign yet of a coalition split Labour is watching closely for any sign of fracture.
The Coalition Government's approach to the EU and its key partners has been surprising but commendable. But dont be fooled. It does not mark any shift of the Conservatives policies on Europe. It is pure RealPolitik. There was genuine fear that the weakened Euro would drag the UK back into a recession. But here we are - out of the storm. Another Day - another Euro. The single currency carries on.
Some economists, who should know better, claimed that the crisis would spread to other vulnerable euro countries like Italy and Spain; that these countries would have no choice but to leave the single currency and that even Germany might walk away and start printing Deutschmarks again.
However, the Euro is much stronger than that - and is designed to withstand such shocks. It can, of course, be improved by enforcing strict deficit rules and by creating, which it now is, an emergency bail-out fund. What does not need to happen is any so-called economic governance. National budgets should not be subject to ECOFIN approval and tax policy should remain a useful competitive tool not be remotely part of any european fiscal union. The European Central Bank however does need to be more political in interest rate decisions and take into account more inflationary pressures in a Euro member state that is struggling. But thats as far as it goes.
I resisted joining in the clamour for quick fix solutions and rather stood back and watch the debate burn itself out. The Greek crisis has been dealt with and the Euro moves on
I read with interest some opinion polls which shows that two thirds of voters noe believe the EU is more relevant than ever following the financial crisis. thsi is remarkable considering no-one particularly liked being asked to bail out the Greek system as though it were some kind of perverse award for their fecklessness.
It was unfortunate that UK Deputy PM used the excuse of the Greek financial crisis as the reason why he changed his mind on the urgency of austere deficit cuts. Regardless, none of this of course excuses the fact that he campaigned to win Lib Dem votes without telling his voters that he had changed his mind.
What is also strange is that the Conservatives did not join on the bandwagon and launch a tirade against the Euro just when it was at its weakest. Perhaps this can be explained by the realisation that a weakened EU was not in the UK's interests. david Cameron himself said so during a visit to Paris shortly after becoming Premier.
Observers are mystified as to just how muted Cameron, Hague and Osborne have been on Europe - especially when there is a real chance to put the boot in.
The junior coalition partners can be credited for keeping the eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives reined in but how long can this last? At a Progress meeting in the House of Commons, chaired by the new MP for Wolverhampton, Emma Reynolds, Labour Party members came together to find ways of putting a wedge in the coalition on the issue of Europe. While every-one agreed that Europe is not a priority for voters, it is the coalition's achille's heel. Although there is no sign yet of a coalition split Labour is watching closely for any sign of fracture.
The Coalition Government's approach to the EU and its key partners has been surprising but commendable. But dont be fooled. It does not mark any shift of the Conservatives policies on Europe. It is pure RealPolitik. There was genuine fear that the weakened Euro would drag the UK back into a recession. But here we are - out of the storm. Another Day - another Euro. The single currency carries on.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The European Union – the policy that dares not speak its name
The second in a series of three party leader debates, last week, featured the thorny issue of the role of the UK in the European Union – or as the broadcaster, Sky News put it EU interference in the UK.
It presented front-runner, the Conservative leader, David Cameron with an opportunity to claw back some ground lost to Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader who dramatically stole Mr Cameron’s thunder in the first leaders’ debate. The Liberal Democrats are considered to be soft on the European Union and David Cameron’s more sceptical position was thought to hold more appeal to wavering voters. However, to the dismay of Conservative supporters, Mr Cameron decidedly failed to land a killer-blow on the Liberal Democrat leader.
This can only be explained by Mr Cameron’s determination to keep the question of the EU on the margins of his election campaign. In 2001, the Conservatives under the leadership of William Hague put their EU policies – particularly on the Euro – at the centre of their campaign and failed to gain any ground on Labour as a result. Mr Cameron has learnt the lesson from this doomed campaign and has so far avoided the issue of the EU as much as possible for fear of exposing the divisions in his party concerning Europe.
Rather than going in for the kill, Mr Cameron spent his time during the debate on Europe defending the Conservative Party’s position from Nick Clegg’s accusations that the Conservatives would put the UK on the sidelines. Gordon Brown gave the goldilocks pitch of dismissing both his opponents approach on Europe – the Liberal Democrats for being to hot on Brussels, the Conservatives for being to cold. Labour, he said, has it just about right.
Mr Cameron told viewers that he wanted to repatriate certain powers from the EU, although he didn’t elaborate on how or where he would try to negotiate opt-outs. The Conservative party manifesto suggests that criminal justice is one such area where they would try to claw back more national sovereignty. The Liberal Democrat manifesto, by contrast, favours more EU co-operation on criminal justice and homeland security.
The Conservative leader repeated his promise that he would hold a referendum if there was ever another change to the institutional relationship between the UK and the EU. However, this failed to differentiate him from the canny Mr Clegg who also offers the same deal. Nick Clegg even rattled Mr Cameron when he reminded the audience that he dropped his “cast-iron” guarantee for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty once the treaty was finally ratified.
David Cameron was clear about the Conservative’s policy to refuse entry to the single currency. But again, he could not score points against his Liberal Democrat opponents who had modified their position in support of the single currency by adding Gordon Brown’s caveats that the country should join “only when the economic conditions were right” and even then only after a positive referendum result.
Mr Clegg ‘s strategy was clearly to marginalise Mr Cameron on his decision to leave the Centre-Right EPP Group in the European Parliament and form a group with – as he calls them - a “bunch of nutters”. This allowed Gordon Brown to dismiss Cameron’s Conservatives simply as anti-European.
Perhaps it was a mistake for Mr Clegg to remind the audience of his understanding of the European Union from his days as a “Eurocrat” adviser to the former Trade Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, but Mr Clegg was savvy enough to know that he shouldn’t try to sound as Euro-sceptical as the Conservatives might have done just to appeal to the gallery. Instead, he articulated the case for stronger EU co-operation to help bring about stronger financial service regulation and action on climate change.
Mr Brown took a low-key approach but nevertheless repeated the Blairite offer of putting the UK at the heart of Europe and not on the sidelines. He stuck to a pragmatic defence of the EU, repeatedly claiming that three million jobs depended on UK membership.
Both Mr Clegg and Mr Brown performed as they had been expected to by those familiar with their EU policies. The only surprise of the Europe debate was that Mr Cameron took trouble to tone down his more euro-sceptic views – which for many, should have been his strongest card of the evening, certainly in trying to find some clear blue water between himself and his main threat Mr Clegg. His most effective intervention on the issue of Europe came during a discussion on immigration where he promised a cap on the number of people from newly-joined EU countries settling in the UK.
The three main parties’ manifesto commitments on the EU vary only in so far as tone. With the Lisbon Treaty out of the way, and the single currency only a distant prospect, the manifestos could comfortably avoid making any substantive policy decisions one way or the other.
The Conservative’s policy pledges emphasise the role of the US and NATO “as the ultimate guarantee on Europe’s Security.” Labour, however sees the UK playing a strong role in European defence, in “partnership with NATO.” The Labour Party manifesto points at “the poverty of the Tory vision […] summed by their false choice between alliance with the United States and one with Europe.”
It suits Labour of course to paint the Conservatives as being on the fringes of mainstream decision-making in Europe. It describes David Cameron’s decision to take his MEPs out of the Centre-Right Group, the EPP (the largest Group in the Parliament) as “anti-European” and would only undermine Britain’s influence in the EU. However, Gordon Brown left it to Nick Clegg in the TV debate to turn on David Cameron for allying the Conservatives with niche political parties in the European Union.
The manifesto commitments on Europe were successful in keeping the issue low on the electoral agenda and the Leader’s debate also succeeded in creating a full-blown clash on the UK’s position in Europe. The only surprise from both the manifestos and the debates on Europe is that David Cameron restrained himself from a full-blooded eurosceptic attack on his new nemesis, the Euro-friendly Nick Clegg. He did, however, allow himself to repeat more than once the slogan from the 2001 election campaign, “In Europe but not run by Europe”.
It presented front-runner, the Conservative leader, David Cameron with an opportunity to claw back some ground lost to Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader who dramatically stole Mr Cameron’s thunder in the first leaders’ debate. The Liberal Democrats are considered to be soft on the European Union and David Cameron’s more sceptical position was thought to hold more appeal to wavering voters. However, to the dismay of Conservative supporters, Mr Cameron decidedly failed to land a killer-blow on the Liberal Democrat leader.
This can only be explained by Mr Cameron’s determination to keep the question of the EU on the margins of his election campaign. In 2001, the Conservatives under the leadership of William Hague put their EU policies – particularly on the Euro – at the centre of their campaign and failed to gain any ground on Labour as a result. Mr Cameron has learnt the lesson from this doomed campaign and has so far avoided the issue of the EU as much as possible for fear of exposing the divisions in his party concerning Europe.
Rather than going in for the kill, Mr Cameron spent his time during the debate on Europe defending the Conservative Party’s position from Nick Clegg’s accusations that the Conservatives would put the UK on the sidelines. Gordon Brown gave the goldilocks pitch of dismissing both his opponents approach on Europe – the Liberal Democrats for being to hot on Brussels, the Conservatives for being to cold. Labour, he said, has it just about right.
Mr Cameron told viewers that he wanted to repatriate certain powers from the EU, although he didn’t elaborate on how or where he would try to negotiate opt-outs. The Conservative party manifesto suggests that criminal justice is one such area where they would try to claw back more national sovereignty. The Liberal Democrat manifesto, by contrast, favours more EU co-operation on criminal justice and homeland security.
The Conservative leader repeated his promise that he would hold a referendum if there was ever another change to the institutional relationship between the UK and the EU. However, this failed to differentiate him from the canny Mr Clegg who also offers the same deal. Nick Clegg even rattled Mr Cameron when he reminded the audience that he dropped his “cast-iron” guarantee for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty once the treaty was finally ratified.
David Cameron was clear about the Conservative’s policy to refuse entry to the single currency. But again, he could not score points against his Liberal Democrat opponents who had modified their position in support of the single currency by adding Gordon Brown’s caveats that the country should join “only when the economic conditions were right” and even then only after a positive referendum result.
Mr Clegg ‘s strategy was clearly to marginalise Mr Cameron on his decision to leave the Centre-Right EPP Group in the European Parliament and form a group with – as he calls them - a “bunch of nutters”. This allowed Gordon Brown to dismiss Cameron’s Conservatives simply as anti-European.
Perhaps it was a mistake for Mr Clegg to remind the audience of his understanding of the European Union from his days as a “Eurocrat” adviser to the former Trade Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, but Mr Clegg was savvy enough to know that he shouldn’t try to sound as Euro-sceptical as the Conservatives might have done just to appeal to the gallery. Instead, he articulated the case for stronger EU co-operation to help bring about stronger financial service regulation and action on climate change.
Mr Brown took a low-key approach but nevertheless repeated the Blairite offer of putting the UK at the heart of Europe and not on the sidelines. He stuck to a pragmatic defence of the EU, repeatedly claiming that three million jobs depended on UK membership.
Both Mr Clegg and Mr Brown performed as they had been expected to by those familiar with their EU policies. The only surprise of the Europe debate was that Mr Cameron took trouble to tone down his more euro-sceptic views – which for many, should have been his strongest card of the evening, certainly in trying to find some clear blue water between himself and his main threat Mr Clegg. His most effective intervention on the issue of Europe came during a discussion on immigration where he promised a cap on the number of people from newly-joined EU countries settling in the UK.
The three main parties’ manifesto commitments on the EU vary only in so far as tone. With the Lisbon Treaty out of the way, and the single currency only a distant prospect, the manifestos could comfortably avoid making any substantive policy decisions one way or the other.
The Conservative’s policy pledges emphasise the role of the US and NATO “as the ultimate guarantee on Europe’s Security.” Labour, however sees the UK playing a strong role in European defence, in “partnership with NATO.” The Labour Party manifesto points at “the poverty of the Tory vision […] summed by their false choice between alliance with the United States and one with Europe.”
It suits Labour of course to paint the Conservatives as being on the fringes of mainstream decision-making in Europe. It describes David Cameron’s decision to take his MEPs out of the Centre-Right Group, the EPP (the largest Group in the Parliament) as “anti-European” and would only undermine Britain’s influence in the EU. However, Gordon Brown left it to Nick Clegg in the TV debate to turn on David Cameron for allying the Conservatives with niche political parties in the European Union.
The manifesto commitments on Europe were successful in keeping the issue low on the electoral agenda and the Leader’s debate also succeeded in creating a full-blown clash on the UK’s position in Europe. The only surprise from both the manifestos and the debates on Europe is that David Cameron restrained himself from a full-blooded eurosceptic attack on his new nemesis, the Euro-friendly Nick Clegg. He did, however, allow himself to repeat more than once the slogan from the 2001 election campaign, “In Europe but not run by Europe”.
Ashton Critics seize on “half-baked” Euro-Diplomacy Service. Can the Baroness Survive the Onslaught?
European Union Foreign Ministers are meeting today (26 April 2010) in Luxembourg to consider controversial proposals prepared by Baroness Ashton for a new External Action Service (EAS) which will be responsible for all EU diplomatic services around the world. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy desperately needs approval from Member States for her EAS blue-print which has been dogged by criticism for its proposed structure and budgets.
The High Representative has published new proposals a month after her original plan issued on March 25th, was roundly slammed for creating the role of an all-powerful Secretary-General. The new structure sees a triumvirate running the 7,000- strong service. One of the triumvirates would deputise for her at official diplomatic visits. It is not known whether this would be another Commissioner, with a remit in external policy – or even a Foreign Minister from one of the Member States. The Lisbon Treaty does not provide for an official deputy but the three posts are expected to be occupied by heavy-weights in order to give the High Representative the support she clearly needs if she is to make the EAS a success.
The new structure, already provisionally agreed by ambassadors to the EU, is designed to reflect the prevailing interests of the Commission and the Council in EU foreign policy – the Commission, because it is still reluctant to relinquish control over budgets for delegations to countries around the world; and the Council because Member States retain full responsibilities for their foreign policies. However, the new command structure, while trying to accommodate both the Council and the Commission, runs the risk of creating further confusion over who is running the EU’s foreign policy.
A more immediate concern for Baroness Ashton is the growing criticism from MEPs over the lack of accountability of the new EAS. A German Christian Democrat MEP, Ingeborg Graessle, has said that the Ashton proposals are in violation of European laws since they do not provide for any accountability to the European Commission or to the European Parliament.
German MEP Elmar Brok, who is responsible for writing the European Parliament’s report on the proposals, has threatened to pull the plug on the proposals if they are not changed to improve accountability to the Parliament. MEPs refuse to believe the claim by Baroness Ashton will be budget-neutral (ie: would not cost more than the costs of the structure that it will replace). The European Parliament has the power to block the budget for the EAS if it does not agree to its proposed structure.
Once foreign ministers give their approval to the plans today, attention will turn to MEPs who are already critical not just of the plans but also of the architect. The proposals are seen as an important test of the credibility of the newly-appointed High Representative – who just four months into office, has been dismissed by many as a “lightweight” and could even bring about her downfall.
Cathy Ashton took office as soon as the Lisbon Treaty was ratified and was the UK’s candidate for the role after British Foreign Secretary turned it down.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was criticized at home for nominating some-one who had so little experience on the international stage. Baroness Ashton was appointed Trade Commissioner only when Lord Mandelson was recalled to Government. It was also seen as a victory for the French who were free to put their man – Michel Barnier – in the coveted Internal Market Commissioner position. Stephen Booth, Director of the Brussels and London think tank “Open Europe” dismissed her as a “complete lightweight”.
The French Foreign Minister, Bernard Savage immediately criticized Baroness Ashton for failing to turn up in Haiti to fly the EU flag after the earthquake. She told journalists she didn’t do “disaster tourism”. She was also criticized by the French Europe Minister, Pierre Lelouche for going to Ukraine for the inauguration of the pro-Russian Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovich rather than a major European defence conference in Majorca. The French have also criticized her for going to London every weekend and having de-briefing sessions on a Friday at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
On 8th March, The High Representative faced down her critics at a meeting of European foreign ministers in Córdoba. Her position had been so badly weakened, she took with her a letter signed by David Miliband and Swedish foreign secretary Carl Bildt saying that EU foreign ministers should get behind her and her plans for the EAS. The storm abated for a short while, before the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy summoned her to the Elysée Palace where he reportedly gave her a dressing down for “amateurism” and, quelle horreur - having such a poor command of French. Monsieur Lelouche made an impertinent offer to arrange a residential French language class for the High Representative.
However, to British ears, the sniping sounded like Paris begrudged losing control of international diplomacy – a policy sphere that France guarded jealously. And given that she needed time to learn the ropes, Baroness Ashton was given the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, the negative response to her proposals for the EAS has put Baroness Ashton in a very dangerous place. Der Spiegel last week reports that there is a growing body of MEPs from across the political spectrum who question whether she is the right person for the job. With a basic salary of €323,000, she is the world’s highest paid female politician and MEPs wonder whether she is out of her depth.
The European People’s Party – a coalition of European Centre-Right parties in the European Parliament – have been sceptical about Baroness Ashton’s capabilities from the outset. Not long after she was approved by the European Parliament, an official spokesperson for the EPP Chairman, Joseph Daul went on record as saying; “We expect a lot from the position of High Representative. So far she has not met that level of expectation. We are not trying to destroy her but want an improvement in her work.” He even was far as saying; “It’s not right to assume she is there for five years. She can be removed. Something must change.”
Political point-scoring alone cannot explain the Ashton-bashing. The EPP cannot get rid of her and have her replaced by one of their own – the deal was always going to be a Centre Left High Representative in return for living with a Centre-Right President – Mr Van Rompuy. It cannot be explained either by Anglophobia since the French were happy with securing the Internal Market portfolio for Michel Barnier and in fact the French President had even boasted that they had beaten the British in securing the job. The only explanation is turf-war politics – The French and Germans want a say in the appointment of key EU ambassadors in the new EAS, concerned that it will become a British Foreign Office writ large. It doesn’t help either that in addition, the Commission President is behind a power grab for the EU aid and development funds.
There are some signs of encouragement for Baroness Ashton’s supporters. Its been acknowledged in diplomatic circles that she has developed a chemistry with US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton and that the appointment of Poul Skytte Christofferon, former Danish Ambassador to the EU, as her special adviser, is considered generally as a good thing.
Nevertheless, there is a real threat that the Baroness might not survive much longer. Brussels is watching the UK election very closely to see what will happen. Should Labour lose the General Election in the UK, she would lose the support of her biggest backer. Her detractors could petition for her replacement – perhaps with David Milliband, the outgoing British Foreign Secretary.
The High Representative has published new proposals a month after her original plan issued on March 25th, was roundly slammed for creating the role of an all-powerful Secretary-General. The new structure sees a triumvirate running the 7,000- strong service. One of the triumvirates would deputise for her at official diplomatic visits. It is not known whether this would be another Commissioner, with a remit in external policy – or even a Foreign Minister from one of the Member States. The Lisbon Treaty does not provide for an official deputy but the three posts are expected to be occupied by heavy-weights in order to give the High Representative the support she clearly needs if she is to make the EAS a success.
The new structure, already provisionally agreed by ambassadors to the EU, is designed to reflect the prevailing interests of the Commission and the Council in EU foreign policy – the Commission, because it is still reluctant to relinquish control over budgets for delegations to countries around the world; and the Council because Member States retain full responsibilities for their foreign policies. However, the new command structure, while trying to accommodate both the Council and the Commission, runs the risk of creating further confusion over who is running the EU’s foreign policy.
A more immediate concern for Baroness Ashton is the growing criticism from MEPs over the lack of accountability of the new EAS. A German Christian Democrat MEP, Ingeborg Graessle, has said that the Ashton proposals are in violation of European laws since they do not provide for any accountability to the European Commission or to the European Parliament.
German MEP Elmar Brok, who is responsible for writing the European Parliament’s report on the proposals, has threatened to pull the plug on the proposals if they are not changed to improve accountability to the Parliament. MEPs refuse to believe the claim by Baroness Ashton will be budget-neutral (ie: would not cost more than the costs of the structure that it will replace). The European Parliament has the power to block the budget for the EAS if it does not agree to its proposed structure.
Once foreign ministers give their approval to the plans today, attention will turn to MEPs who are already critical not just of the plans but also of the architect. The proposals are seen as an important test of the credibility of the newly-appointed High Representative – who just four months into office, has been dismissed by many as a “lightweight” and could even bring about her downfall.
Cathy Ashton took office as soon as the Lisbon Treaty was ratified and was the UK’s candidate for the role after British Foreign Secretary turned it down.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was criticized at home for nominating some-one who had so little experience on the international stage. Baroness Ashton was appointed Trade Commissioner only when Lord Mandelson was recalled to Government. It was also seen as a victory for the French who were free to put their man – Michel Barnier – in the coveted Internal Market Commissioner position. Stephen Booth, Director of the Brussels and London think tank “Open Europe” dismissed her as a “complete lightweight”.
The French Foreign Minister, Bernard Savage immediately criticized Baroness Ashton for failing to turn up in Haiti to fly the EU flag after the earthquake. She told journalists she didn’t do “disaster tourism”. She was also criticized by the French Europe Minister, Pierre Lelouche for going to Ukraine for the inauguration of the pro-Russian Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovich rather than a major European defence conference in Majorca. The French have also criticized her for going to London every weekend and having de-briefing sessions on a Friday at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
On 8th March, The High Representative faced down her critics at a meeting of European foreign ministers in Córdoba. Her position had been so badly weakened, she took with her a letter signed by David Miliband and Swedish foreign secretary Carl Bildt saying that EU foreign ministers should get behind her and her plans for the EAS. The storm abated for a short while, before the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy summoned her to the Elysée Palace where he reportedly gave her a dressing down for “amateurism” and, quelle horreur - having such a poor command of French. Monsieur Lelouche made an impertinent offer to arrange a residential French language class for the High Representative.
However, to British ears, the sniping sounded like Paris begrudged losing control of international diplomacy – a policy sphere that France guarded jealously. And given that she needed time to learn the ropes, Baroness Ashton was given the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, the negative response to her proposals for the EAS has put Baroness Ashton in a very dangerous place. Der Spiegel last week reports that there is a growing body of MEPs from across the political spectrum who question whether she is the right person for the job. With a basic salary of €323,000, she is the world’s highest paid female politician and MEPs wonder whether she is out of her depth.
The European People’s Party – a coalition of European Centre-Right parties in the European Parliament – have been sceptical about Baroness Ashton’s capabilities from the outset. Not long after she was approved by the European Parliament, an official spokesperson for the EPP Chairman, Joseph Daul went on record as saying; “We expect a lot from the position of High Representative. So far she has not met that level of expectation. We are not trying to destroy her but want an improvement in her work.” He even was far as saying; “It’s not right to assume she is there for five years. She can be removed. Something must change.”
Political point-scoring alone cannot explain the Ashton-bashing. The EPP cannot get rid of her and have her replaced by one of their own – the deal was always going to be a Centre Left High Representative in return for living with a Centre-Right President – Mr Van Rompuy. It cannot be explained either by Anglophobia since the French were happy with securing the Internal Market portfolio for Michel Barnier and in fact the French President had even boasted that they had beaten the British in securing the job. The only explanation is turf-war politics – The French and Germans want a say in the appointment of key EU ambassadors in the new EAS, concerned that it will become a British Foreign Office writ large. It doesn’t help either that in addition, the Commission President is behind a power grab for the EU aid and development funds.
There are some signs of encouragement for Baroness Ashton’s supporters. Its been acknowledged in diplomatic circles that she has developed a chemistry with US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton and that the appointment of Poul Skytte Christofferon, former Danish Ambassador to the EU, as her special adviser, is considered generally as a good thing.
Nevertheless, there is a real threat that the Baroness might not survive much longer. Brussels is watching the UK election very closely to see what will happen. Should Labour lose the General Election in the UK, she would lose the support of her biggest backer. Her detractors could petition for her replacement – perhaps with David Milliband, the outgoing British Foreign Secretary.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Lib-Dems and Labour come together to expose Tory weaknesses on Europe
Last night the Liberal Democrats and Labour came together to present a progressive common cause united against the reactionary forces of Conservatisim. Or at least it was an opportunity for them to steal a march on a Tory policy that seems doggedly rooted in the Major years untouched by the uber-modernising David Cameron.
Chris Bryant MP, Europe Minister and Ed Davey MP- Lib Dem Shadow Foreign Minister spoke at a Westminister event last night on the issue of the Conservative Party's policy on Europe. And they started with Tory MEPs record in the European Parliament.
They said that in the last few weeks Tory MEPs have voted against measures to tackle tax evasion and tax havens.
Chris Bryant warned that if the Conservatives win the election they will do everything in their power to get opt-outs on EU social protection measures such as maternity leave.
Ed Davey wents as far as calling many Tories "mouth-frothing xenophobes. He said that the Conservatives were actually taking a step back into out-right euro-scepticism. Michael Howard when Home Secretary actually helped set up Europol. Now the Tories oppose the European Arrest Warrant and Eurojuste. As part of the Stockholm Process, the Uk will have the choice to opt-in or opt-out of measures over teh next five years. We should be asking the question now - what will the Conservatives do if elected - opt-in or out of Eurojuste?
If David Cameron thinks that he has got rid of Europe as an election issue by dumping his cast-iron guarantee for a referendum, then last night showed that both Labour and the Lib Dems are willing to open a common front and make the Conservatives squirm a little over what exactly they intend to do on some very critical questions.
Chris Bryant MP, Europe Minister and Ed Davey MP- Lib Dem Shadow Foreign Minister spoke at a Westminister event last night on the issue of the Conservative Party's policy on Europe. And they started with Tory MEPs record in the European Parliament.
They said that in the last few weeks Tory MEPs have voted against measures to tackle tax evasion and tax havens.
Chris Bryant warned that if the Conservatives win the election they will do everything in their power to get opt-outs on EU social protection measures such as maternity leave.
Ed Davey wents as far as calling many Tories "mouth-frothing xenophobes. He said that the Conservatives were actually taking a step back into out-right euro-scepticism. Michael Howard when Home Secretary actually helped set up Europol. Now the Tories oppose the European Arrest Warrant and Eurojuste. As part of the Stockholm Process, the Uk will have the choice to opt-in or opt-out of measures over teh next five years. We should be asking the question now - what will the Conservatives do if elected - opt-in or out of Eurojuste?
If David Cameron thinks that he has got rid of Europe as an election issue by dumping his cast-iron guarantee for a referendum, then last night showed that both Labour and the Lib Dems are willing to open a common front and make the Conservatives squirm a little over what exactly they intend to do on some very critical questions.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Blooded and Bloodied - The New Commission has been initiated by the European Parliament but only after MEPs get their scalp
Over the last two weeks, the European Parliament held hearings with every single prospective Commissioner – except the President. The hearings are the only occasion for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to genuinely bring some influence to bear on the formation of the next Commission. While Commissioner Hearings are a useful exercise in casting some light on a rather secretive selection process, do they really inject the kind of accountability that the Commissioners like to pretend it does and do MEPs really feel that they have held the Commission to account after listening to a series of set-piece answers?
Questions are designed to test the nominee’s credentials, size up their commitment to the European agenda – over and above any national interests – and scrutinize their priorities for the next five years.
The Hearings certainly put the candidates’ probity and record to the test. The Commissioner-designate from Bulgaria, Rumania Jeleva, was allocated the humanitarian aid portfolio but was compelled to stand down after accusations that she failed to fully declare her financial interests while she was an MEP.
As an exercise in determining the policies and priorities for the prospective Commissioner’s five year mandate, it was a disappointment but only because the candidates played safe by repeating the lines of their predecessors. This was to be expected since they will have been prepped in advance by advisers to the incumbent Commissioners and, of course, because the President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso has already set a course for his second term.
If the Hearings were designed to expose gaps in the candidate’s knowledge of their portfolios, it worked. Some arrived with a clear command of their briefs; notably Connie Hedegaard, who chaired the Copenhagen Climate Change summit on behalf of the Danish Government and now commissioner designate for Climate Action. Others who are new to their allocated policy responsibilities such as Joacquini Almunia, the respected Spanish Commissioner for Economic Affairs and now designate for Competition, demonstrated less expertise in the All eyes were on Baroness Ashton – the newly-appointed High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security – returned to the Parliament for a second time to face MEPs. This time she appeared in her capacity as the nominated Vice President of the European Commission and Commissioner responsible for External Affairs. Members of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs committee were keen to hear more about how she would undertake her duties as arguably the EU’s answer to Hilary Clinton. Alas, it was a lacklustre performance. Many MEPs commented on her responses as unfocused, uninspiring, showing only a superficial knowledge of the world issues. She failed to clearly prioritise her agenda, mentioning every continent other than Oceania as her priority.
It was her British compatriots on the Foreign Affairs committee that gave Baroness Ashton the toughest grilling. Conservative members tried to embarrass the former Labour leader of the House of Lords with questions about her past employment in the CND.
Nevertheless, she remained composed and confident throughout the hearing, honestly admitting her lack of knowledge on certain issues. In any case there was no real danger that MEPs would object to her candidature given the unanimous backing she received for the High Representative position by Member States
Mutterings over the performance by Neelie Kroes, the Commissioner-designate for the newly-created Digital Agenda role, caused some nervousness in President Barroso’s camp. She was the only nominee to be called back for a second smaller meeting, in which coordinators of the main political groups came out satisfied by her more solid opinions and agenda for Digital Europe. Her poor showing at the Hearing surprised many given that she was respected for her grip on the competition portfolio in the previous Commission.
Members of the highly influential internal market committee wanted to see how far the French Michel Barnier would differ from the Irish Charlie McCreevy in the powerful Internal Market Commissioner role. His nomination caused a fracas with the British when the French President gloated that his appointment represented a defeat for the Anglo-Saxon model. M Barnier, however, was at pains to reassure members of the committee that he would not blindly follow a French model of market economics. He played down prospects of heavy-handed regulation under his stewardship of the internal market role. He even quoted Adam Smith – an icon of the free-market British.
The Commissioner Hearings provided the European Parliament with a chance to flex their muscles. The recently-ratified Lisbon Treaty gives MEPs new decision-making powers in more policy areas – such as Justice and Home Affairs and Sport. Parliament was certainly keen to demonstrate its prowess. The reality is, however, that MEPs cannot veto individual candidates although it can refrain from approving the entire Commission team. On Monday evening (18 January), co-ordinators from the political groups met to discuss Rumania Jeleva’s candidature and it soon became clear that MEPs would reject the Commission if Ms Jeleva remained in post. The Socialist & Democrat Group was particularly adamant. The leadership of the European People’s Party responded to pressure from the Socialists with a half-hearted request for the head of Slovakia's socialist nominee, Maroš Šefcovic, nominated for the lowly inter-institutional relations role, ostensibly for comments he was
supposed to have made at a conference in 2005 that Roma were “exploiting the Slovak welfare system”. However EPP Leader Joseph Daul backed down admitting he did not have the stomach for “blood and corpses”.
This outbreak of political posturing has only served to delay the process of assembling a new College of Commissioners. The College was due to be approved by a parliamentary vote on 26th January. The most likely replacement for Ms Jeleva should be Kristalina Georgieva, currently, Vice-President of the World Bank. Her hearing should take place on February 3rd. The parliamentary vote will now take place on 9th February. It will be an anti-climax to a long and wearisome process that started with political-horse-trading over President Barroso’s re-appointment and the uncertainty of when if ever the Lisbon Treaty would ever be signed, meaning the existing Commission had to stay on as a caretaker Commission after its official mandate expired in November 2009.
The Hearings have dominated events in the European Parliament last week. However, there has been a lot of noise and too little light for the Hearings to be of any real worth to MEPs and the general public. The prospective Commissioners will feel that they have escaped the Hearings without too much damage being inflicted. In reality, they have all benefited from safety in numbers and owe their individual mandate not to the Parliament but to their own national Governments still.
Questions are designed to test the nominee’s credentials, size up their commitment to the European agenda – over and above any national interests – and scrutinize their priorities for the next five years.
The Hearings certainly put the candidates’ probity and record to the test. The Commissioner-designate from Bulgaria, Rumania Jeleva, was allocated the humanitarian aid portfolio but was compelled to stand down after accusations that she failed to fully declare her financial interests while she was an MEP.
As an exercise in determining the policies and priorities for the prospective Commissioner’s five year mandate, it was a disappointment but only because the candidates played safe by repeating the lines of their predecessors. This was to be expected since they will have been prepped in advance by advisers to the incumbent Commissioners and, of course, because the President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso has already set a course for his second term.
If the Hearings were designed to expose gaps in the candidate’s knowledge of their portfolios, it worked. Some arrived with a clear command of their briefs; notably Connie Hedegaard, who chaired the Copenhagen Climate Change summit on behalf of the Danish Government and now commissioner designate for Climate Action. Others who are new to their allocated policy responsibilities such as Joacquini Almunia, the respected Spanish Commissioner for Economic Affairs and now designate for Competition, demonstrated less expertise in the All eyes were on Baroness Ashton – the newly-appointed High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security – returned to the Parliament for a second time to face MEPs. This time she appeared in her capacity as the nominated Vice President of the European Commission and Commissioner responsible for External Affairs. Members of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs committee were keen to hear more about how she would undertake her duties as arguably the EU’s answer to Hilary Clinton. Alas, it was a lacklustre performance. Many MEPs commented on her responses as unfocused, uninspiring, showing only a superficial knowledge of the world issues. She failed to clearly prioritise her agenda, mentioning every continent other than Oceania as her priority.
It was her British compatriots on the Foreign Affairs committee that gave Baroness Ashton the toughest grilling. Conservative members tried to embarrass the former Labour leader of the House of Lords with questions about her past employment in the CND.
Nevertheless, she remained composed and confident throughout the hearing, honestly admitting her lack of knowledge on certain issues. In any case there was no real danger that MEPs would object to her candidature given the unanimous backing she received for the High Representative position by Member States
Mutterings over the performance by Neelie Kroes, the Commissioner-designate for the newly-created Digital Agenda role, caused some nervousness in President Barroso’s camp. She was the only nominee to be called back for a second smaller meeting, in which coordinators of the main political groups came out satisfied by her more solid opinions and agenda for Digital Europe. Her poor showing at the Hearing surprised many given that she was respected for her grip on the competition portfolio in the previous Commission.
Members of the highly influential internal market committee wanted to see how far the French Michel Barnier would differ from the Irish Charlie McCreevy in the powerful Internal Market Commissioner role. His nomination caused a fracas with the British when the French President gloated that his appointment represented a defeat for the Anglo-Saxon model. M Barnier, however, was at pains to reassure members of the committee that he would not blindly follow a French model of market economics. He played down prospects of heavy-handed regulation under his stewardship of the internal market role. He even quoted Adam Smith – an icon of the free-market British.
The Commissioner Hearings provided the European Parliament with a chance to flex their muscles. The recently-ratified Lisbon Treaty gives MEPs new decision-making powers in more policy areas – such as Justice and Home Affairs and Sport. Parliament was certainly keen to demonstrate its prowess. The reality is, however, that MEPs cannot veto individual candidates although it can refrain from approving the entire Commission team. On Monday evening (18 January), co-ordinators from the political groups met to discuss Rumania Jeleva’s candidature and it soon became clear that MEPs would reject the Commission if Ms Jeleva remained in post. The Socialist & Democrat Group was particularly adamant. The leadership of the European People’s Party responded to pressure from the Socialists with a half-hearted request for the head of Slovakia's socialist nominee, Maroš Šefcovic, nominated for the lowly inter-institutional relations role, ostensibly for comments he was
supposed to have made at a conference in 2005 that Roma were “exploiting the Slovak welfare system”. However EPP Leader Joseph Daul backed down admitting he did not have the stomach for “blood and corpses”.
This outbreak of political posturing has only served to delay the process of assembling a new College of Commissioners. The College was due to be approved by a parliamentary vote on 26th January. The most likely replacement for Ms Jeleva should be Kristalina Georgieva, currently, Vice-President of the World Bank. Her hearing should take place on February 3rd. The parliamentary vote will now take place on 9th February. It will be an anti-climax to a long and wearisome process that started with political-horse-trading over President Barroso’s re-appointment and the uncertainty of when if ever the Lisbon Treaty would ever be signed, meaning the existing Commission had to stay on as a caretaker Commission after its official mandate expired in November 2009.
The Hearings have dominated events in the European Parliament last week. However, there has been a lot of noise and too little light for the Hearings to be of any real worth to MEPs and the general public. The prospective Commissioners will feel that they have escaped the Hearings without too much damage being inflicted. In reality, they have all benefited from safety in numbers and owe their individual mandate not to the Parliament but to their own national Governments still.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Iceland referendum and EU acession talks is a Perfect Storm
Iceland is gearing up for EU acession talks to begin in March this year. In a case of seriously unfortunate timing, Iceland is holding a referendum on the Icesave Bill on either 27th February or 6th March. In early March the Icelandic Government will also enter formal acession negotataions with the EU.
UK Chancellor, Alastair Darling hinted darkly on 4th January that the British Government would block Icelandic membership if they did not sign the bank repayment deal. Since then, Icelandic President Grimmson declared that he would not sign the bill and instead referred the issue to a national vote. Icelanders are certain to reject the anglo-dutch deal.
Although the British Foreign Office has since given assurances that the UK won't interfere with the Icelandic negotiations on EU membership, the reality is that the UK may beforced to take a stronger line once the Referendum rejects the repayment arrangements - not least because it will not want to be seen as being forced to back down at a time when the UK is in the middle of a febrile election period.
The problems for Iceland's acession plans don't end there. Germany and France have said that they will not make any concessions to Iceland - even if they are generally positive about Icelandic membership. The first two sectors that will be negotiated are fisheries and agriculture. Icelandic waters are rich pickings for European fishermen and fisheries represent a quarter of Icelandic exports. This will be a big test of Iceland's appetite for EU membership. At a time when it is trying to recover from the financial disaster, it is being asked to submit to strict EU quotas. IN adition, the French will be scrutinising very closely the talks on Icelandic membership of the Common Agricultural Policy. Iceland's 3,000 farmers fear that CAP membership will reduce local agricultural production by up to 50%. Nevertheless CAP membership does offer other benefits to Iceland.
The Germans are even more lukewarm about the prospect of Icelandic acession. The CSU - Angela Merckel's sister party has said it is not the EU's duty to "save" countries in trouble.
Despite this, Iceland could still expect a fast-track process. The country already meets 80% of the community acquis. True - there has already been a delay in achieving candidate status. The country had expected to gain candidate status in December but it was only because of internal EU wrangling over Lisbon appointments that delayed the decision. The present European Commission is a caretaker one with no mandat to make new decisions. Iceland must wait until its successor is properly in place. The Council can only confer candidate status after a recommendation from the EU executive. These recommendations need parliamentary approval too.
Iceland is still hopeful of EU membership in two years and membership of the Euro in four years.
One of the biggest attractions of EU membership for Iceland would be to join the Euro, after the virtual destruction of its currency. This, however, requires a preliminary period of two years during which the Icelandic krona would need to be within the narrow band of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. It would be difficult for Iceland to negotiate an exemption from this requirement, which is embedded in the Maastricht treaty
Iceland is a member of the European Economic Area, and participates in many EU programmes, including the Schengen agreement. Understandably it was disappointed that the Union did not mobilize itself quickly to come to the stricken country's aid, forcing it to turn instead to countries such as Russia and Japan, with which it has no formal links.
Despite the widespread disappointment with the EU, many Icelanders appear to have concluded that their best bet for the future would be to join the Union as soon as possible. Membership has never been so popular.
However, the dispute with the UK and the Netherlands over bank bailouts - as well as indignation in Rekjavik that it is forced to beg its Nordic neighbours for IMF support, could mean public support for EU membership could soon wane. Iceland needs to redouble its efforts to improve bilateral relations with key EU member states to ensure there is no further delay to EU acession talks. There is every risk that the country could be blind-sided by adverse developments from IMF loan talks and the Icesave bail-out referendum. Its essential then that it strengthens informal as well as the more formal channels of communications with the EU and its members (the UK in particular). It should demonstrate its European credentials by hosting a major informal EU summit in Rekjavik later this year to draw a line under the banking crisis fall-out and set about finding a pan-European solution to guaranteeing bank deposits. Iceland should regain its confidence after a series of polital and economic blows and set out what it can do to bring something to the European table.
UK Chancellor, Alastair Darling hinted darkly on 4th January that the British Government would block Icelandic membership if they did not sign the bank repayment deal. Since then, Icelandic President Grimmson declared that he would not sign the bill and instead referred the issue to a national vote. Icelanders are certain to reject the anglo-dutch deal.
Although the British Foreign Office has since given assurances that the UK won't interfere with the Icelandic negotiations on EU membership, the reality is that the UK may beforced to take a stronger line once the Referendum rejects the repayment arrangements - not least because it will not want to be seen as being forced to back down at a time when the UK is in the middle of a febrile election period.
The problems for Iceland's acession plans don't end there. Germany and France have said that they will not make any concessions to Iceland - even if they are generally positive about Icelandic membership. The first two sectors that will be negotiated are fisheries and agriculture. Icelandic waters are rich pickings for European fishermen and fisheries represent a quarter of Icelandic exports. This will be a big test of Iceland's appetite for EU membership. At a time when it is trying to recover from the financial disaster, it is being asked to submit to strict EU quotas. IN adition, the French will be scrutinising very closely the talks on Icelandic membership of the Common Agricultural Policy. Iceland's 3,000 farmers fear that CAP membership will reduce local agricultural production by up to 50%. Nevertheless CAP membership does offer other benefits to Iceland.
The Germans are even more lukewarm about the prospect of Icelandic acession. The CSU - Angela Merckel's sister party has said it is not the EU's duty to "save" countries in trouble.
Despite this, Iceland could still expect a fast-track process. The country already meets 80% of the community acquis. True - there has already been a delay in achieving candidate status. The country had expected to gain candidate status in December but it was only because of internal EU wrangling over Lisbon appointments that delayed the decision. The present European Commission is a caretaker one with no mandat to make new decisions. Iceland must wait until its successor is properly in place. The Council can only confer candidate status after a recommendation from the EU executive. These recommendations need parliamentary approval too.
Iceland is still hopeful of EU membership in two years and membership of the Euro in four years.
One of the biggest attractions of EU membership for Iceland would be to join the Euro, after the virtual destruction of its currency. This, however, requires a preliminary period of two years during which the Icelandic krona would need to be within the narrow band of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. It would be difficult for Iceland to negotiate an exemption from this requirement, which is embedded in the Maastricht treaty
Iceland is a member of the European Economic Area, and participates in many EU programmes, including the Schengen agreement. Understandably it was disappointed that the Union did not mobilize itself quickly to come to the stricken country's aid, forcing it to turn instead to countries such as Russia and Japan, with which it has no formal links.
Despite the widespread disappointment with the EU, many Icelanders appear to have concluded that their best bet for the future would be to join the Union as soon as possible. Membership has never been so popular.
However, the dispute with the UK and the Netherlands over bank bailouts - as well as indignation in Rekjavik that it is forced to beg its Nordic neighbours for IMF support, could mean public support for EU membership could soon wane. Iceland needs to redouble its efforts to improve bilateral relations with key EU member states to ensure there is no further delay to EU acession talks. There is every risk that the country could be blind-sided by adverse developments from IMF loan talks and the Icesave bail-out referendum. Its essential then that it strengthens informal as well as the more formal channels of communications with the EU and its members (the UK in particular). It should demonstrate its European credentials by hosting a major informal EU summit in Rekjavik later this year to draw a line under the banking crisis fall-out and set about finding a pan-European solution to guaranteeing bank deposits. Iceland should regain its confidence after a series of polital and economic blows and set out what it can do to bring something to the European table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
