Meet Britain’s new European Commissioner

Baroness AshtonBaroness Ashton. Ever heard of her? No? There’s a surprise. Her only qualification for the job seems to be that her full title is Baroness Ashton of Upholland – perhaps dear old Gordon assumed this meant she has something to do with the Netherlands?

Peter Mandelson may have been a discredited tit when he was appointed, but at least he was high-profile and quite blatantly had the ear of the Prime Minister. This dear peer? She may have been made Leader of the House of Lords last year, but she’s barely registered an impact on the public consciousness. She is, however, a staunch Labour loyalist, and the wife of similarly staunch Labour man, semi-influential journalist Peter Kellner, a co-founder of polling organisation YouGov.

Track record on Europe? Well, here are all her speeches mentioning the European Union in the last seven years. No doubt they’ll bear double-checking. From a brief skim through, all that’s stood out for me are the standard parrot phrases of a loyalist who’s memorised the talking points. Which seems to be precisely what Brown wants in Brussels – a bit of a no-mark who can make the right noises, but who hasn’t got much of a brain of their own.

Being harsh? Maybe. After all, one of her old jobs has technically had an EU element to it (along with several others, including the rather odd pairing of the National Archives and the Tribunals Service). But she was only in that post for a year, and the rest of her work history is decidedly of the parochial standard.

But it would, let’s face it, be entirely in keeping with Brown’s track record on UK-EU relations to chuck someone irrelevant and with little knowledge of the EU out to Brussels. He’s barely paid the EU a blind bit of notice since coming to power, and had precious little time for our EU cousins while Chancellor. Indeed, it’s largely down to Brown and his famous “five economic tests” that Blair wasn’t able to use Labour’s remarkable series of majorities over the last ten years to combat the rising euroscepticism of the British people. Those tests shot any pro-EU Labour drive in the foot before it even started through the simple question “So, Mr Blair, if the EU’s so great how come your Chancellor won’t let us join the single currency?”

Gordon Brown has, in other words, finally demonstrated his utter lack of interest in the EU. Hell, even Maggie Thatcher was more constructively engaged with Brussels than Gordon – and we’re in the middle of just the sort of trans-national economic crisis that the EU was in part set up to help counter. You’d be forgiven for imagining that Brown’s forgotten the EU’s existed – especially when it’s a big story that he’s going to deign an important EU crisis summit with his presence.

But hey – Ashton’s a woman! That’s, like, progressive and stuff! And it’s all the rage to appoint women no one’s ever heard of with little in the way of an appropriate CV to important political positions these days, it seems. Go Gordy! You’re with it, man!

I never thought I’d say it, but come back ex-Commissioner Peter Mandelson – all is forgiven. (Sorry, that should now be Lord Mandelson – yet another insanely stupid move on Brown’s part, albeit for entirely domestic reasons. I mean, bringing back someone who’s twice been forced to quit the Cabinet in disgrace and is hated by pretty much the entire country? And entirely unelected to boot? Seriously, Gordon? Do you WANT to lose the next election?)

Just when you thought a government couldn’t get any worse…

Update: Pertinent points from Jon Worth:

Mandelson was playing an important role in WTO negotiations, and Ashton will not be able to replicate Mandelson’s network of contacts, even if she has the opportunity to do so. For I can imagine that the French government is already on the phone to Barroso making sure someone else gets the Trade portfolio and Ashton gets allocated Multilingualism or something similar.

Agreed entirely. Meant to mention that. You can’t possibly have an unknown in as important a portfolio as Trade, no matter how big the member state. Brown’s just downsized Britain’s influence in Europe even further. Nice one, Gordon.

Brown, Miliband and the EU

Well, he may have ignored it for months, but now it’s finally taking shape – although it hardly seems to be overly well thought-out.

So, was Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s choice of Bruges to deliver his first EU policy speech symbolic? It is, after all, the scene of the moment when Maggie Thatcher allowed her (entirely understandable) irritation with the then EEC to bubble over into hyperbole and hysteria back in 1988, inspiring the formation of the staunchly anti-EU thinktank the Bruges Group in the process.

Well, considering Miliband quoted the Iron Lady at length in a subsection to his speech headed “Twenty Years on from the Bruges Speech”, you can be certain that he was at least aware of the potential symbolism. But how different is his language, his approach?
Continue reading

On foreign policy speeches, the elephant in the room, and a slight shift in focus

For a largely foreign policy-focussed blog, Gordon Brown’s offered little of any interest since becoming Prime Minister. He simply doesn’t seem to have much interest in the rest of the world, happily ignoring both the EU and the US for weeks on end, and seemingly making little effort to make friends on the international stage.

Sod his speech the other day. It struck me as too full of platitudes to be of any use (“the first duty of government [is] the protection of the British national interest”, “global challenges need global solutions” etc.), with all kinds of oddness piled on top:

“I want to play my part in helping the European Union move away from its past preoccupation with inward looking institutional reform and I will work with others to propose a comprehensive agenda for a Global Europe – a Europe that is outward looking, open, internationalist, able to effectively respond both through internal reform and external action to the economic, security and environmental imperatives of globalisation.”

Does Brown not get that further institutional reform of the EU – including reforms beyond the vague compromises of the reform treaty – is vital for it to continue to function, or is he simply hoping to avoid any more of it, and thus further irritating spats about referenda?

Either way, it matters not a jot – because Gordon Brown is far too weak to have any significant impact on European (let alone global) relations at the moment. It looks like he’s already buggered his chances of getting in with Bush, and with the race to succeed old George still too close to call, he’s got no idea which candidates to start sucking up to for the post-November 2008 period, by which time Brown will, in any case, be gearing up for an election of his own.

Having failed to call an election this autumn, Brown finds himself with two years to make an impact on the international scene at the very worst time, with the US presidency in transition – and, more importantly, an insanely secure and charismatic internationalist French president charging around making friends with everyone. Barely at the start of his first term as president, still hugely popular, with a big parliamentary majority to back him up – he’s secure, will be around for a long time, and seems to have a knack for becoming best buddies with whichever world leader he happens to be with at the time.

With Angela Merkel’s coalition on the verge of collapse in Germany, Prodi again embroiled in the type of controversy that can always end the inevitably short-lived governments of Italy, and Zapatero looking weak in Spain after this year’s tight local elections (and a general election due next year), and Brown rocking backwards and forwards singing to himself with his eyes closed and fingers in his ears whenever anyone mentions the EU, it is again to France – Sarkozy – that Europe must look for leadership.

So, ignore Gordon Brown’s speech, and instead look to Sarkozy’s speech at the European Parliament the other day and speech to the US Congress a week or so ago if you want to get an idea of where foreign policy is really going to be focussed.

Brown can ramble on about Iran as much as he likes, but it’s what happens in Europe, not the middle east, that will have the most impact on Britain in the next few years – if he’s serious about protecting the British national interest (whatever that may be…), he’d do well to get in with Sarkozy sharpish to head off any problematic reforms and foreign policy objectives before France manages to get them so secure on the agenda that they’re impossible to remove. Making friends with Sarkozy is also essential to start shaping the inevitable additional changes within the EU before they really start to form, in the wake of the reform treaty’s bad compromises. All Brown’s done so far is bury his head in the sand and hope all the various EU-related problems somehow go away.

But, of course, what everyone’s really ignoring – and Sarkozy is, at least publicly, as guilty of this as anyone – is Russia. Sod the middle east, sod institutional reform, sod further expansion and sod terrorism – Russia is Europe’s single biggest problem. Be it cyber-warfare against Estonia, cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine, killing people on the streets of London, or threatening countries willing to do a deal with the US on missile defence, Russia is throwing its weight around big style – and something needs to be done to calm the bear.

Sarkozy is in a very good position to do this – capitalising on his nascent friendship with Putin (who is bound to maintain influence even after the presidential elections in the spring) as well as the long friendship between France and Russia. Brown’s government, meanwhile, has merely escalated the post-Litvinenko tensions by chucking out diplomats and rattling sabres – which helps precisely no one, and has got us precisely nowhere.

If one thing is a given, it’s that keeping Russia on board is vital not just for Europe’s energy future but also for the stability of the countries on the European fringe (both new EU member states and those that may become such in a few years). With energy supplies likely to become ever more of a central issue over the next few years as the middle east remains unstable, Russia’s dominance of the Asian oil and gas fields, and ability to control pretty much all supply lines in to Europe from the east (see map – PDF), means that Moscow/Putin has more ability to influence Europe than pretty much anyone else. Until Turkey and Georgia are sufficiently stabilised and, ideally, brought in to the EU (allowing an alternate route, via the Caspian Sea, for the oil and gas of Central Asia without having to pass through Russia or the middle east at all), maintaining friendly relations with Russia is vital.

So, expect more on Sarkozy here over the next few months – as well as rather more on Russia-EU relations in the run-up to the Presidential elections in March, and the Duma elections on 2nd December. Sarkozy is likely to dominate the EU for at least another four years, and Russia’s impact is only going to increase as oil and gas supplies dwindle – it would be foolish for anyone trying to take the broad view of EU affairs to ignore this any longer.

Brown’s only error:

Not ruling out an election sooner.

This insane hyperbole (“humiliating retreat”? “cling to office”? “extraordinary indecision and extraordinary weakness”? You what?) shows just how worried the Tories still are. Yes, Cameron made a storming speech at the conference the other day, and yes they’ve had a big boost in the polls over the last week or so.

But the one question the advocates of an autumn general election have singularly failed to answer is: “why?”

There are two reasons to have a general election: 1) The government is coming to the end of its legally-limited five year term in office, and 2) The government no longer has a sufficient majority to see legislation through the House of Commons. That’s it.

Brown has a large Commons majority and a good two and a half years left before he legally has to call an election. So why the hell should he? Because the party leader, and therefore Prime Minister, has changed mid-term? So why no elections in 1990, 1976, 1963, 1957, 1955, 1940, etc. etc. etc.? It’s a nonsense.

Yes, Brown could have called an election to get a re-affirmed mandate for his government. But the time to do that was the moment he took over from Blair. Calling one three months later – after riding high in the polls all summer following a series of moderately well-handled crises and a succession of Tory cock-ups – would smack of dangerous opportunism. For what’s to stop any government from repeatedly calling snap elections when they’re temporarily doing well once that precedent’s set?

Brown should have said more forcefully on taking over that he was going to serve the full term (but you can understand why he didn’t – after all, Labour were elected on the promise that Blair was soon to be going). That he didn’t is most likely because he didn’t think the Tories were so desperate as to keep up the election calls all summer, because – excluding the last two weeks of Tory bounceback – an election at any point in the last four months would have seen yet another Labour landslide.

And as for the electorate? Less than two-thirds bothered to show for the election two years ago – what makes anyone think they could be bothered now?

It’s too soon after Brown’s takeover to see just how similar or different he is from Blair, and I doubt if anyone could tell you what David Cameron stands for. (Hell, I’m more than averagely politically aware, and I genuinely haven’t got a clue about either of them… In fact, I’m not even sure where my constituency’s boundary lies any more, since the re-jig a year or so back…) We all need at least another year of Brown in charge to see the real him, preferably two. And Cameron, lest we forget, is still so new that Brown had already been Chancellor for four years by the time young Dave entered parliament…

A snap, three week election campaign would merely ensure that the public is even more uncertain about which of these two slightly mysterious, little-known figures would be best to lead the country. And uncertainty in politics breeds both apathy and resentment far more than does a Prime Minister deciding not to bow to pressure from the opposition and launch an expensive and unnecessary mid-term election.

Brown’s EU diplomatic strategy

Brown and Merkel

What with the ongoing spat with Russia (hyped out of all proportion, I reckon, and hope I’m not proved wrong), the fact that our dear new Prime Minister has made his first overseas jaunt while in office seems to have been largely forgotten. The fact that Brown managed a solid three weeks in the UK before nipping off abroad – approximately 400% longer than Tony Blair ever managed during his ten years in office* – has likewise received little comment. (Blair’s first overseas visit, by the way, was to the US, which could be significant…)

But why, with so much to do in Europe, Germany? Why suck up to Angela Merkel, with her relatively unstable coalition and two weeks after she passed the EU presidency on to Portugal? Why not follow the EU presidency itself? Why not head to Brussels and meet Commission head Barroso? Why not try to form a good relationship with Europe’s most secure and powerful politician, Nicholas Sarkozy (who he’s due to meet on Friday)? Why not Sarkozy and Merkel at the same time, in an EU big three spitroast?
Continue reading

Possible career move for Gordon Brown?

Heh – via a friendly French reader, Le Monde ponders why, as Gordon may have to wait a while longer to become Prime Minister, doesn’t he go off and save France, Germany and Italy from their disastrous heads of state in the mean time? (Very rapid translation):

“The chancellor is the only person able finally to give Germany the macroeconomic policy which it needs, the only person who can finally bring to France a governmental line which is not solely dictated by the preoccupation with ‘communication’, and the only person capable of formulating a vision for Italy which is not short-term. Mr. Brown, last but not least, could, as a single Prime Minister for the three countries, coordinate their economic policies which are today far too separate, too national and uncooperative…

“England has two great talented politicians that may be part of the solution [to our problems] : Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. That’s one too many. Rather than letting them fighting each other, it would be better for Her Majesty to lend us one. The only problem with the Scotsman Brown is that he never smiles. He’s not funny. Good. That would make a change from our jokers.”

Could this be an option now that there are increasing numbers of column inches devoted to slagging off and doubting our Chancellor’s abilities? Heh…