Last year’s European Parliament elections were won by the Christian Democrats, the EPP becoming the largest group. It was also the case that most of the 27 EU countries had prime ministers from the right. It was thus obvious, clear and well-known to anyone who took the trouble to be informed about such things – by reading a European newspaper for example – that the first permanent President of the European Council would come from that group. This is not only power politics. If you have a committee of 27 people divided into different factions and not owing their positions to the chairman of that committee, it makes sense for the chairman to be from the dominant faction; it makes it easier for the committee to work. It was also expected that the Socialists would get the number two post of High Representative.
Such dealing is the stuff of European politics, at national level as well as in the EU. That this was not clear to people in Britain says a number of things: that the British people don’t know what is going on in Europe or how things are done there is, after 35 years of British membership, a terrible indictment of the country’s media and politicians, who have failed to explain this. Rather, it would be if those media themselves understood the situation. They don’t: ‘Barring unforeseen accidents or a last-minute stealth candidate, the spanking new job of “president of Europe” looks to be Tony Blair's for the asking.’ The Guardian 8-10-09. (Compare: ‘Blair will not become the President of Europe.’ This blog 12-3-2008). The Independent is no better. Twice today (here and here) it claims, apparently quite genuinely, that its campaign against Blair was ‘wot won it’. The Stop Blair petition, run by European Tribune for more than a year, got 45,000 signatures; but a European popular initiative counts as nought in comparison with a British newspaper. And what about the politicians? How on earth did the British Government get itself into the position of supporting the candidature of a man who never had the ghost of a chance? Did they act against the advice of their diplomatic advisors, or did those advisors themselves not understand the situation? The Conservatives too have a lesson to learn – though they won’t. It is that having left the EPP they lost the chance of making any input at all on the choice of the new President.
There is a significant cultural difference here. The UK has a confrontational political system in which two parties slug it out without quarter and leave the rest of the country’s political opinion nowhere. It is said that this leads to strong government, though people rarely ask whether the strength of a government is a measure of its goodness or its efficiency, let alone its democratic legitimacy. Things happen quickly: a new government has to be in place within hours of the election result being known and inter-party negotiations are a sign of delay and weakness. Worst of all, they represent a watering down of the ideological principles that drive the country’s endless class war.
In Europe it is different. The desire for consensus, to involve as much of the electorate as possible in government, means that the cake has to be divided and if you don’t get the lion’s share, or even any share, this time round, you can be sure your time will come in the end. This is a hugely important principle. It may be the antithesis of the British way of doing things but it is the European way: after 35 years the UK should have worked out how things are done and accepted the need to adapt accordingly. Why did they back Blair so strongly and so stubbornly when, apart from his coming from the wrong side politically, his record as the PM who did nothing pro-European and who participated in the Iraq war were further enormous factors against him? Heaven knows. They never had a chance of getting him in. It developed to the stage that they kept him in the running so as to force a concession by withdrawing him in favour of Miliband, and when that failed they had to change tack to Hoon or Ashton; but that can hardly have been the original strategy. What is abundantly clear is that people in Britain just don’t understand how the EU works. It is equally clear that they will have to learn if they wish to be taken seriously as anything more than nationalist bullies and blackmailers. The country is strong enough to get its own way when it wants, but every time it does so it demeans itself in the eyes of the other member states.
A French-German stitch-up, they say. In a sense it was (and Reinfeldt, who was nominally responsible for making the recommendation, thought that he was presented with a fait accompli), but it is a fact that the Franco-German alliance is still what drives the EU. Quite apart from the historical reasons for this alliance existing, a simple look at a map shows that these two countries dominate the European peninsula physically and in terms of population. As long as we have a Europe of nation states, which is what the Eurosceptics have forced on us, those two countries will be powerful. On the flanks Spain and Poland, which are smaller in size and population, also exert influence. The UK, which could be influential, rules itself out of everything serious except military affairs, but has the curious delusion that it is a country that is at the heart of Europe and should be taken seriously.
What about the resulting appointments and the way in which they were made? First of all it may be useful to look at the job description of the President of the Council:
The President of the European Council:
(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;
(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;
(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;
(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.
The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
The President of the European Council shall not hold a national office.
The President has no executive powers. Countries in Europe do not elect their prime ministers so it is hard to see why the Chairman of this Council should be elected. Herman Van Rompuy seems to be a pretty good choice; he is a political fixer, who can keep the show on the road. That is what is required. It is said that Sarkozy, Merkel and Barroso didn’t want a strong figure who would overshadow them. There may be something in that, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the nature of the post militates against the appointment of a superstar.
The appointment of Cathy Ashton as High Representative is interesting. It was for the Socialists to make the appointment (the Liberals, by the way, get their cut of EU power by appointing commissioners). It was clear that there was a desire for a large number of women on the Commission, and the High Representative is also its Vice-President. So, after much British bellowing about the need for superstars to run the Union, the UK has given us someone that hardly anyone had heard of till Thursday. Her lack of recognition does not in itself count against her. I understand that she has done a good job as Trade Commissioner in the last year – a post that has a strong international aspect. It has been suggested that the UK has always been against the EU having its own foreign policy and now it has the chance to make sure that it doesn’t get one that works. On the other hand, it is said that with a Brit running the EU’s foreign policy the FCO will have to toe the line rather more. We will see.
I am not at all convinced, by the way, that traffic-stopping superstars are better than unknown people as political appointments. Most prominent politicians are controversial. That controversy gives the journalists and bloggers something to write about, which is why they want more of such people, but it is not to my mind any indication of competence or efficiency. And you don’t know how things will turn out. Here’s a story. At the beginning of January 2002 John Lichfield, the Independent’s man in Paris, wrote of how a bank machine in Paris failed to give him euro notes at 00.20 on 1 January, the day the new physical currency came into circulation. In fact the introduction of the notes and coins was a spectacular success, as the euro itself has proved to be. Today John Lichfield, the Independent’s man in Paris, writes, ‘Limp waves of polite puzzlement circled the globe yesterday as leaders adjusted to the news that the much ballyhooed EU President would be a mild-mannered, competent manager rather than a charismatic new “face” for Europe.’ Let’s wait and see what happens, shall we?
Finally, there is one aspect of all this that I have not seen mentioned anywhere. The last week has been for the European Council and the Commission. Soon, the Parliament will meet. So far it has said nothing because it has not had the chance to do so, but we can be certain that it will. It has to approve the Commissioners and can now sack them individually rather than sacking the whole Commission en bloc, as was the case under Nice. It also has greater power than ever before and we can expect to hear quite a lot from it. It is not like a national parliament – and the Eurosceptics who bleat and moan about the democratic deficit are the very people who have ensured that its powers are limited – but it will have power. We will hear a lot about the European Parliament in the future – much more than in the past. At least, those of us who read European newspapers will.
Brian Barder has an interesting piece on this theme on his Ephems blog.
Recent Comments