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”.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
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.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Spanish take on the EU Presidency yet we now have a new President of the European Council. So, who will be calling the shots in 2010?
On January 1st 2010, Spain will take over the rotating Presidency of the European Union. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the socialist President of Spain, will, with his government lead the European Council for the next six months. Spain will set the agenda in Council, preside over Council meetings, lead negotiations and attempt to broker compromises between the member states on current European Affairs and a set of predefined priorities.
And yet, we also have – thanks to the implementation on 1st December 2009 of the Lisbon Treaty – a permanent President of the European Council in the person of former Belgian Premier, Herman van Rompuy, whose job it is to chair the European Council, which consists of the Heads of State of the EU’s 27 Member States. The Lisbon Treaty was meant to bring about more consistency in policy-making at the centre of the EU decision-making machinery; so why does the EU persist with its six-month Presidency where each Member State has Buggin’s Turn at the top of the table?
National capitals have to prepare their priorities well in advance of the start of their turn at the Presidency (Spain has been preparing for over a year). For some, the Presidency is an opportunity to show-case their government at the European level; for others, it’s just a distraction. National ministers are required to spend more time in Brussels and much of the civil service becomes pre-occupied with matters that are not necessarily core to their department. Rotating presidencies do not make for consistent policy-making. Often the priorities of one Presidency are completely at odds with those of its successor.
For now, at least, it will be business as usual for the rotating Presidency system. Herman van Rompuy has no administration that he can instruct to run the constituent parts of the Council. The European Council will continue to be assisted by the General Secretariat of the Council, and as such, the President will depend on the advice and support of the staff of the General Secretariat.
The new foreign affairs council will be chaired by the High Representative – another position created by the Lisbon Treaty. Former European Trade Commissioner, Baroness Ashton will perform this function. Unlike the President, she will have her own department – the European External Action Service (EEAS) - which is expected to be operational in April 2010 and will act as the EU diplomatic corps, drawing advisers from Foreign Ministries across the European Union. Already, President van Rompuy has made the point of keeping foreign ministers out of the European Council meetings now that they have a dedicated Foreign Affairs Council. There are signs that a turf war is about to break out between the Foreign Affairs Council and the General Affairs Council, which since its split from External Relations Council (when it was known by the acronym, GAERC – General Affairs and External Relations Council), focuses mainly on co-ordination across policy areas or preparation for the European Council. It is rumoured that trade policy and enlargement will fall under the remit of the Foreign Affairs council, despite the General Affairs Council’s attempts to keep the policy areas within its own mandate.
The Foreign Affairs Council is unique in that it is chaired by the High Representative rather than the Presidency. The High Representative will also appoint her own representatives to chair the constituent parts of the European External Action Service, such as the Political and Security committee. All other Councils – such as the Economic and Financial Affairs Council made up of 27 Finance Ministers - will continue to be chaired by the relevant minister from the rotating presidencies. The Committee of Permanent Representations (COREPER) which comprises of the EU 27 Ambassadors and deputy Permanent Representatives) and the Council working groups, made up of national officials based in Brussels - will continue to be chaired by the rotating Presidencies too.
The role of President of the European Council is very new and the job description provided by the text in the Lisbon Treaty is deliberately vague. It can be as elastic as the office-holder wants it to be. If Tony Blair had been appointed, there is no doubt that he would have set to work straight away on building a power-base, very much modelled on Baroness Ashton’s EEAS. President van Rompuy is much more limited in his ambition. Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable that the remit of the permanent President’s role (and accordingly that of the General Secretariat) will, at some point, expand to the point where it rivals the rotating Presidency in setting the Council agenda and pushing through legislation on behalf of the 27 Member States.
The Lisbon Treaty and its implementation impose a complex political balancing act on the Spanish Presidency. Mr Zapatero has been careful to work closely with the new President of the European Council to avoid potential friction over the two presidential roles. They agreed in mid-December to create a working group to coordinate their activities for the next six months. Mr Zapatero told Mr van Rompuy; “Mr Council President, the rotating presidency is at your disposal to support you in taking up appropriately the role of leadership and political steering of the European Council”. However, it seems unlikely that Spain will handover the fruit of months of preparation to someone appointed just last November. It appears that Messrs Zapatero and Van Rompuy have already agreed that Madrid will Chair the EU-US and EU-Latin America Summits, which in principle are to be led by the Council President. So far so good. But what about the implications for the long term future of the Presidency?
The Council President could evidently fully replace Country Presidencies, yet one could argue that rotating presidencies add specific expertise and funding that a single President could not deliver. There’s a case to be made for either system but as events unfold and turf wars break out, as they inevitably will, it will be hard to make a case for both.
And yet, we also have – thanks to the implementation on 1st December 2009 of the Lisbon Treaty – a permanent President of the European Council in the person of former Belgian Premier, Herman van Rompuy, whose job it is to chair the European Council, which consists of the Heads of State of the EU’s 27 Member States. The Lisbon Treaty was meant to bring about more consistency in policy-making at the centre of the EU decision-making machinery; so why does the EU persist with its six-month Presidency where each Member State has Buggin’s Turn at the top of the table?
National capitals have to prepare their priorities well in advance of the start of their turn at the Presidency (Spain has been preparing for over a year). For some, the Presidency is an opportunity to show-case their government at the European level; for others, it’s just a distraction. National ministers are required to spend more time in Brussels and much of the civil service becomes pre-occupied with matters that are not necessarily core to their department. Rotating presidencies do not make for consistent policy-making. Often the priorities of one Presidency are completely at odds with those of its successor.
For now, at least, it will be business as usual for the rotating Presidency system. Herman van Rompuy has no administration that he can instruct to run the constituent parts of the Council. The European Council will continue to be assisted by the General Secretariat of the Council, and as such, the President will depend on the advice and support of the staff of the General Secretariat.
The new foreign affairs council will be chaired by the High Representative – another position created by the Lisbon Treaty. Former European Trade Commissioner, Baroness Ashton will perform this function. Unlike the President, she will have her own department – the European External Action Service (EEAS) - which is expected to be operational in April 2010 and will act as the EU diplomatic corps, drawing advisers from Foreign Ministries across the European Union. Already, President van Rompuy has made the point of keeping foreign ministers out of the European Council meetings now that they have a dedicated Foreign Affairs Council. There are signs that a turf war is about to break out between the Foreign Affairs Council and the General Affairs Council, which since its split from External Relations Council (when it was known by the acronym, GAERC – General Affairs and External Relations Council), focuses mainly on co-ordination across policy areas or preparation for the European Council. It is rumoured that trade policy and enlargement will fall under the remit of the Foreign Affairs council, despite the General Affairs Council’s attempts to keep the policy areas within its own mandate.
The Foreign Affairs Council is unique in that it is chaired by the High Representative rather than the Presidency. The High Representative will also appoint her own representatives to chair the constituent parts of the European External Action Service, such as the Political and Security committee. All other Councils – such as the Economic and Financial Affairs Council made up of 27 Finance Ministers - will continue to be chaired by the relevant minister from the rotating presidencies. The Committee of Permanent Representations (COREPER) which comprises of the EU 27 Ambassadors and deputy Permanent Representatives) and the Council working groups, made up of national officials based in Brussels - will continue to be chaired by the rotating Presidencies too.
The role of President of the European Council is very new and the job description provided by the text in the Lisbon Treaty is deliberately vague. It can be as elastic as the office-holder wants it to be. If Tony Blair had been appointed, there is no doubt that he would have set to work straight away on building a power-base, very much modelled on Baroness Ashton’s EEAS. President van Rompuy is much more limited in his ambition. Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable that the remit of the permanent President’s role (and accordingly that of the General Secretariat) will, at some point, expand to the point where it rivals the rotating Presidency in setting the Council agenda and pushing through legislation on behalf of the 27 Member States.
The Lisbon Treaty and its implementation impose a complex political balancing act on the Spanish Presidency. Mr Zapatero has been careful to work closely with the new President of the European Council to avoid potential friction over the two presidential roles. They agreed in mid-December to create a working group to coordinate their activities for the next six months. Mr Zapatero told Mr van Rompuy; “Mr Council President, the rotating presidency is at your disposal to support you in taking up appropriately the role of leadership and political steering of the European Council”. However, it seems unlikely that Spain will handover the fruit of months of preparation to someone appointed just last November. It appears that Messrs Zapatero and Van Rompuy have already agreed that Madrid will Chair the EU-US and EU-Latin America Summits, which in principle are to be led by the Council President. So far so good. But what about the implications for the long term future of the Presidency?
The Council President could evidently fully replace Country Presidencies, yet one could argue that rotating presidencies add specific expertise and funding that a single President could not deliver. There’s a case to be made for either system but as events unfold and turf wars break out, as they inevitably will, it will be hard to make a case for both.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Chancellor sets out challenge of EU financial regulation threats in Pre-Budget Report
Not many clues in the UK Chancellor's Pre-Budget report today on how the Treasury is preparing to defend the City of London against new measures coming from Brussels aimed to restrict the financial services sector. Much less was there any ideas of what the rationale would be when there is, according to some, pressure in the UK economy to reduce dependence on the financial services sector.
New Internal Market Commissioner, Michel Barnier, is on record as saying that the City of London is an asset to Europe. However, there is real anxienty in the Square Mile that the European Commission proposals on market regulation will put the City in a competitive disadvantage and that the Government is not properly geared up to take the battle to Brussels. The Anglo-Saxon model has been castigated by the French, Dutch, Belgian and Germans for the financial crisis even though their banks too were horribly exposed.
The Pre-Budget Report says that the Government is "closely involved in negotiating the proposed Alternative Investment Fund Manager Directive" and that it "has been working to secure substantial improvements". Still early days I suppose but its not clear that the Government has developed a fully operational strategy yet to deal with the regulatory threats to its hedge fund and private equity industry.
The Pre-Budget Report also says that the Government is "actively engaged in EU efforts to amend the Capital Requirements Directive to provide a state-of-the-art prudential framework for credit institutions and investment firms in the EU." Current proposals will raise the amount of capital banks must hold against resecuritisations and assets held in their trading books: "The UK is strongly supportive of the adoption of these rules and will continue to ensure that EU legislation appropriately strengthens prudential standards while being consistent with international agreements."
Another priority is “Solvency II”: "contributing to the development of modern and risk-based EU-wide solvency requirements for insurers that protect Europe’s claimants, savers and pensioners. What would be good to know is what the Government's position on the tax consequences of the Directive is.
The British have a real fight on their hands to defend the interests of the City. It will also have to square its position with its claim to take a global leadership role in cracking down on "excessive risk-taking" in in financial services as well as reducing over-reliance on the financial sector in the British economy.
New Internal Market Commissioner, Michel Barnier, is on record as saying that the City of London is an asset to Europe. However, there is real anxienty in the Square Mile that the European Commission proposals on market regulation will put the City in a competitive disadvantage and that the Government is not properly geared up to take the battle to Brussels. The Anglo-Saxon model has been castigated by the French, Dutch, Belgian and Germans for the financial crisis even though their banks too were horribly exposed.
The Pre-Budget Report says that the Government is "closely involved in negotiating the proposed Alternative Investment Fund Manager Directive" and that it "has been working to secure substantial improvements". Still early days I suppose but its not clear that the Government has developed a fully operational strategy yet to deal with the regulatory threats to its hedge fund and private equity industry.
The Pre-Budget Report also says that the Government is "actively engaged in EU efforts to amend the Capital Requirements Directive to provide a state-of-the-art prudential framework for credit institutions and investment firms in the EU." Current proposals will raise the amount of capital banks must hold against resecuritisations and assets held in their trading books: "The UK is strongly supportive of the adoption of these rules and will continue to ensure that EU legislation appropriately strengthens prudential standards while being consistent with international agreements."
Another priority is “Solvency II”: "contributing to the development of modern and risk-based EU-wide solvency requirements for insurers that protect Europe’s claimants, savers and pensioners. What would be good to know is what the Government's position on the tax consequences of the Directive is.
The British have a real fight on their hands to defend the interests of the City. It will also have to square its position with its claim to take a global leadership role in cracking down on "excessive risk-taking" in in financial services as well as reducing over-reliance on the financial sector in the British economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
