A Victory for Brown and a Damning Indictment of the European Union

November 20th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

So, the EU heads of state and the cabal of unaccountable bureaucrats chose anonymous and anonymous-er as the President and High Representative of the European Union, respectively, yesterday in Brussels. The decision, which saw one-year Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy chosen for the top spot, and Britain’s EU Trade Commissioner, Baroness Ashton, for the High Representative slot, was a victory for bland, consensus politics, and Gordon Brown. It was also pungent with the smell of Platonic ‘benevolent’ tyranny, and as such a damning indictment of the European Union as it is currently constituted.

Mr. Von Rompuy, a Christian Democrat, was clearly taken specifically because of his blandness. Having only been in office in Belgium for one year, he has had little chance to make enemies in the EU; further, he has no strong foreign policy views that could divide the EU. Tellingly, appointing a man with little foreign policy experience is indicative of an EU which does not want a Presidential traffic stopper to vigorously represent the EU’s interests to the mighty ‘G2′, but rather a secretary general type figure who will be adept at massaging consensus out of the disparate foreign policy aims of the EU’s member states.

More interestingly, Charlemagne, the Economist’s Europe columnist notes, in the most instructive analysis currently available on the net:

I think it also means that today’s European leaders have little ambition to use the EU to talk to the world, at least not at the highest level. Instead, they know their voters want to use the union as a “Europe that protects”, a Europe that makes the world go away. This Europe is an ageing, rich and frightened place, that wants to spend its money on Frontex border guards to keep the poor of the world away. It wants to devote 40% of the EU budget to subsidising farmers against global competition. This Europe rejects the strategic arguments in favour of opening the union to Turkey (one of the few known positions on foreign policy ascribed to Mr Van Rompuy is that he thinks Turkey can never be part of the EU)…

They wanted someone to reach consensus among leaders on big subjects of internal, domestic interest. They wanted someone who did not overshadow national leaders, but acted as a secretary general for their summits.

Continuing the theme, Charlemagne argues that Lady Ashton is also likely to have been chosen because of her utility to a potentially inward looking EU. He notes that many within the EU — especially the French — who seek to drive forward a combined EU military, view Britain’s involvement in any defence force as essential. It follows, therefore, that one of the top slots should go to a Briton.

Beyond that, it is probable that Lady Ashton was chosen because she, too, is inoffensive and bland, because she is a woman and a centre-left politician and therefore balances the ticket on two counts, and that she’s become quietly popular among EU grandees and career bureaucrats. Gordon Brown will be ecstatic that his tactic of continuing to push for Tony Blair, despite knowing that he could not win, in order to be able to claim ‘compensation’ has paid off.

But this shouldn’t disguise to British voters that the whole process, and the decision it has yielded, has been a risible, asinine fudge.

Both positions have been filled with no democratic component, by individuals chosen for their anonymity and political innocuousness, who will have no accountability to the half billion people they represent. Lady Ashton has never held elected office.

Even europhiles can’t be happy with this insipid subjugation.

Tags [ , , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ Economics and Finance ]

Comments [ 7 ]

Is the EU Living Up to the Cliches?

November 19th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

The Parallax Brief read this afternoon a fascinating insight into the EU presidential race on Charlamagne’s blog on the Economist’s website. About half way through, however, the slight thrill of being privy some insider information on the backroom deals and political horsetrading gave way to a queasy feeling. Heads of state, their diplomats slyly maneuvering to get the best deal for politicians, are deciding on two representatives with great power over hundreds of millions of people.

“…what takes me aback is the level of “distrust” out there about Mr Reinfeldt, to use the word chosen by a senior figure from one EU country. There are veiled hints that he is using his role as chairman of the selection process in a way that is not wholly straightforward.

Specifically, there is grumbling about Mr Reinfeldt’s decision to seek a very short list of candidates to put to EU leaders at their emergency summit, consisting of one or two names who enjoy near consensus before discussions even start. The thing about this system, it is alleged, is that it gives Mr Reinfeldt extraordinary power over the process, because once a candidate attracts any opposition, that candidate can be chucked off the shortlist as “failing to create consensus”. The accusation from some camps is that candidates are being chucked off too quickly, when the opposition to them might not be as hard and fast as all that. Nobody is quite accusing Mr Reinfeldt of using this system to kick people off the shortlist who he himself does not favour, but they are coming pretty close.”

Now, what does that sound like to you? It’s all well and good criticising as shrill extremists those who sound the alarm bells about the EU, comparing it to Soviet Russia, Fascist Germany, or any other totalitarian, illiberal, undemocratic society one might care to conjure, but reading this, perhaps they have a point?

It’s astonishing that even the Parallax Brief, who loves the idea of Europe and who isn’t really concerned about losing British sovereignty, should be driven by the bureaucratic morass and brazen circumvention of democracy to take this view.

Why, for instance, isn’t there a vote for EU President? Why aren’t we even considering this? Have we really become such a supine, venal people?

Tags [ , , ]

Categories [ International Affairs ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Gordon Brown for EU Presidency?

November 13th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

So says Simon Jenkins in yesterday’s Guardian, not so much flying a Hawardan Kite for Gordon Brown as concocting a delicious scenario that allows him to poke fun at both the Prime Minister and the EU:

There is only one candidate for president of Europe: Gordon Brown. He stands head and shoulders above the stage army of Belgians, Dutch, Latvians and others jostling in advance of next Thursday’s EU summit…

Brown is long experienced in international relations, acknowledged as his one strong suit. His presidency would counterbalance the emerging Franco-German axis. He would be strong in standing up for the little states. He would be less indulgent of the monopoly capitalism of German industry and French agriculture, and less indulgent of Brussels’ own indulgence. He is precisely the big beast on the world stage that the job was specifically intended to create, not another Euro-pigmy.

In the current anti-Brown frenzy, the man’s better qualities are being neglected. He is clearly unhappy with the rough and tumble of democratic politics, with the daily grind of public appearances, glad-handing and schmoozing. But these are not required in Brussels, where nobody is elected to anything and such populism as smiling at cameras and holding referendums are anathema. Brown, dark-suited and anonymous, is a natural oligarch, his governing style attuned to the post-democratic statism of 21st-century Europe.

For all that, the prime minister’s instinct would be not to appease the gods of statism but to smash them. His frustration at the blandness of the place would be titanic. He would bellow and shriek, sucking health and safety from the padded corridors of power. There would be blood on the Aubusson. Fish and chips would drown the filet mignon and soccer songs the Odes to Joy. Translators would learn 27 words for shit.

The Parallax Brief can’t think of a better political columnist in the UK today than Jenkins, but this, tragically, will never happen.

Brown bailing now for the EU presidency would be like Don Revie’s astonishing abandonment of the listing England ship to take up an offer to manage in the UAE. And he must know it would be regarded as a scar on his record and raise fresh questions over his belly for a fight.

Second, Brown’s view of finance, banking and economics is absolutely anathema to the Franco-German axis. Third, in the kind of cozy, borderline cronyist manner in which the EU specialises, it has been decided that the role of president will be awarded to a candidate from a centre right party, while the role of EU “foreign minister” will go to someone from the centre left. Finally, it seems reasonable to assume that the EU will search for someone at least popular in his or her own country.

But, to repeat, it is a delicious scenario. It would breathe fresh life into the Labour Party, and would — at least until the first poll under a new leader was published — switch the 2010 election race from being a victory precession into a genuine contest. It would provide some political salvation for a man who will be cruelly (but correctly) remembered as one of the worst modern day prime ministers and an even worse chancellor, giving him a final triumph over his ach nemesis, who clearly covets the job.

Really, though, save your time: don’t watch this space.

Tags [ , ]

Categories [ International Affairs, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Tory EuroFissure: Hague’s “Business as Usual” Approach to EU Asking for Trouble

November 9th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, told the BBC’s Andrew Marr that his party would not immediately take on the EU to repatriate the powers to the British Parliament demanded by Conservative policy, according to the Telegraph yesterday.

“After abandoning plans to hold a referendum on Europe, following last week’s ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Hague said the Tories accepted that constitutional reform would not be on the EU agenda for some years.

And while the party remained Euro-sceptic, a Conservative Government would not get into a “bust-up” over its new policy of seeking to negotiate opt-outs in a number of areas of European policy and pass a sovereignty bill to stop further powers being repatriated for some time to come.

Until then, he agreed that it would effectively be “business as usual” for Britain within Europe under the Tories.”

It’s clear to the Parallax Brief that David Cameron and his team do not want to divert their energies away from the main task at hand if and when they gain power: fixing the economy and Britain’s parlous public finances. It’s equally clear, however, that this isn’t going to satisfy the party base.

Sure enough, ConservativeHome was all over the story, furious at the suggestion.

“…he should not, not be suggesting, unless he wants to generate a massive split in the party, is that the policy is to be a low priority, something not all that important in a world of deficits to cut and wars to fight, something we might or might not get around to one day if we’ve nothing better to do. As I have argued here, Cameron’s hierarchy are mistaken if they believe that the route to an easy life is by doing little on Europe, and equally mistaken if they believe that addressing the Party’s overwhelming (and country’s heavy majority) concerns over Europe would use up political capital rather than create it for other priorities such as public spending cuts, the broken society, and education reform.”

Fighting talk?

Probably not. The Parallax Brief has come to the conclusion that Conservatives on both sides to the Europe divide will fume in private but bite their tongues until the election. They must know, as the Parallax Brief suggests, that the only thing that can stop the Tory Party winning the election is the Tory Party.

But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t storing up trouble for the future.

Tags [ , , , , , ]

Categories [ International Affairs, Tory EuroFissure, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Why Britain’s Position Would Be Stronger in a Stronger EU

November 5th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

The Parallax Brief loathes the European Union as it is currently constituted. He believes it is an undemocratic, unaccountable, corrupt, bureaucratic morass that needs smashing. However, the Parallax Brief also believes unequivocally in the idea that Europe’s individual nations can be stronger within a Union, and also that, counterintuitively, their voices — and results — on a whole range of international affairs and diplomatic matters would be far stronger if they made their interests subservient to a supranational interest.

Why? Geoff Dyer, the FT’s China bureau chief, subbing on Gideon Rachman’s blog, has the goods:

Sitting in Beijing, it is all too easy to feel that Europe is becoming irrelevant, as the US and a rising China stitch up the global agenda. The Chinese have become quite adept at playing one European government against another. When Beijing cancelled a summit with the EU last year to punish Nicolas Sarkozy for meeting the Dalai Lama, the response from other EU capitals was an awkward silence. The European Council on Foreign Relations claims Beijing treats the EU with “diplomatic contempt”.

Another country which has grown adept at divide and rule is Russia, which benefits hugely from the disparate set of competing voices from Europe, dividing by offering carrots to some and playing tough with others, and generally, in energy negotiations with EU Nations, getting its way. Its efforts to monopolise European energy supplies and maximise Gazprom profits would be made far more difficult if Europe spoke and negotiated with one, strong voice.

To be sure, a country like, for instance, Britain, would have to compromise on certain issues and take a deals that was flat bad for it on others. But the way to think about it is this: a state like Illinois, with the rump of its car industry, might well benefit from the introduction of heavy tariffs on imported cars, whereas a state like Washington, with it’s Boeing plant and ports would benefit from free, tariff free trade. So one, or both, can’t pursue its own selfish interests. But would Washington state really have a stronger negotiating position outside the Union?

Now Eastern Europe is on board, the EU has the genuinely continental scale that could make it the preeminent global power. It would have a population  of half a billion, the largest GDP in the world, a formidable military, tremendous natural resources, a mighty industrial base, plenty of arable land and farming skill, many of the finest educational and research establishments in the world, masses of wealth, an unparalleled standard of living, and a rich and almost infinitely varied culture.

Too bad the EU in its current abhorrent state will never make it happen.

Tags [ ]

Categories [ International Affairs ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Tory EuroFissure: French Government Lashes Out at “Autistic” Tory EU Plans

November 5th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

If there was any reason to doubt the egregiousness of the euroscpetic view that the major repatriation of powers, or even the post-facto nullification of the Lisbon Treaty if a referendum returned a no vote, would not lead to the mother of all diplomatic rows with Europe, last night should have dispelled any doubts, as the French government lashed out at the mere prospect of such steps.

According to the Guardian, France’s Europe minister, Pierre Lellouche, accused the Conservative Party of “castrating” Britain’s position within the EU by adopting an “autistic” approach to European relations and policy.

“It’s pathetic. It’s just very sad to see Britain, so important in Europe, just cutting itself out from the rest and disappearing from the radar map …. This is a culture of opposition … It is the result of a long period of opposition. I know they will come back, but I hope the trip will be short.”

“They are doing what they have done in the European parliament. They have essentially castrated your UK influence in the European parliament.”

The Guardian also reports that Lellouche said he has told Hague personally that his position was a “waste of time for all of us”.

The Parallax Brief is particularly interested in this point, as it provides some indication of just how difficult any negotiations with the EU will be for William Hague and David Cameron. How much compromise will Britain have to make? What will it have to give in return? And, most important, what compromise will his own party members, for many of whom all-out diplomatic war with the EU, far from being something to avoid, would likely be welcomed as an opportunity to reset Britain’s position in Europe altogether.

The Parallax Brief asks the question again: Can Cameron offer the Eurosceptic wing of his party enough red meat to satiate their appetite for a major recalibration of Britain’s EU relations without boxing himself into a corner where a major blow up with our EU partners becomes inevitable?

Tags [ , , , , , ]

Categories [ International Affairs, Tory EuroFissure, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Tory Eurofissure: Dan Hannan Resigns Post in Lisbon Protest

November 5th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

Daniel Hannan, Conservative Party MEP for South East England, has resigned his post as party European legal spokesman in protest at Conservative leader David Cameron’s decision to recant from his promise to hold a referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. Mr. Hannan has become an immensely popular figure within Tory circles, due to his hit book, The Plan:12 months to renew Britain, uber-Eurosceptic views, and sharp, Labour-baiting tongue.

Recently the Parallax Brief has focused on the idea that only the Conservative Party can stop the Conservative Party from winning the next election, and it is the fissures that run internally — especially the intra-Tory split on Europe — which have the potential to derail the Tory locomotive which has hitherto appeared unstoppable as on its way to an election victory.

Indeed, the Parallax Brief believes that in the event of another election loss, hung parliament of slim majority, the Euro issue has the potential to become the kind of issue that might see the Conservative Party split altogether in the way Shirley Williams, David Owen, Roy Jenkins and Bill Rogers broke away from Labour to form the SDP in the early eighties.

The Eurosceptic branch of the Conservative Party simply does not see how the ratification of the Lisbon treaty makes a referendum any less feasible. They accept that it would lead to far greater diplomatic problems with the EU, but given that most want a vastly restructured relationship with Brussels, this is no concern.

Cameron must tread carefully if he is to offer these absolutists enough red meat to satiate their appetite for a showdown with the EU, while not enraging the europhile wing of his party by backing himself into a corner from which he is obliged to roll back Britain’s relationship with the rest of the EU.

The previous assumption had been that Tory MPs would hold their tongues and maintain discipline as long as it looked as long as the party was successful. But Mr. Hannan’s resignation and call to arms might suggest otherwise.

Tags [ , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ International Affairs, Tory EuroFissure, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Tory EuroFissure: Lisbon Ruptures Party Discipline

November 4th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

The Parallax Brief maintains that the only party that can stop the Conservative Party winning the next election is the Conservative Party. Labour has been in power too long, the economy is in too much of a mess, and its poll figures have stubbornly refused to budge for too long to imagine that Gordon Brown can work out a way to get himself back into 10 Downing Street next spring or summer.

But the Tories can defeat themselves.

Offering hope to Labour are the classic fissures within the broad church of the Conservative Party, and primary among those is Europe. David Cameron has hitherto kept the Eurosceptic monster placated by promising a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It was his cast iron guarantee, but one — which most fail to realise — that was more for his own party than for voters. And the ratification of Lisbon makes that cast iron guarantee meaningless unless Dave has the stomach for all out diplomatic war with Brussels. Which he doesn’t.

Already the Europhobes are up in arms. David Davis is openly challenging Dave’s authority by demanding a referendum on Britain’s future relationship with the EU. Dan Hannan is using Orwellian language (”the boot continues to stamp on the human face”) while arguing that “referendum shouldn’t be dependent on what happens in other countries.” Meantime, Barry Legg, co-founder of the cross party ultra-sceptic Bruges Group, and former Tory chief exec tells David Cameron that he “needs to come clean with the British people: why is he breaking his pledge to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? What is the point in David Cameron upending one pledge on Europe, but promising he’ll offer us yet more European promises in his general election manifesto? Why will they be any more credible than the ‘cast-iron guarantee’ he has just broken?”

Worse, Dave has a second front to fight on, as the UKIP use his referendum climbdown to make hay, branding David Cameron as “gutless and dishonest.” If the Tories aren’t careful, they cold perhaps see the traditional conservative vote split by the UKIP in certain seats.

Make no mistake, Lisbon ratification is a gift for Labour. Can it capitalize?

Probably the answer to that question lies in whether David Cameron can maintain public unity within his party. But, certainly, the abandonment of the referendum guarantee has awoken powerful forces within the Conservative Party that will not be easily silenced without enraging the pro-Europe wing of the party.

Can Cameron shut his Pandora’s Box?

Tags [ , , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ International Affairs ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Tory EuroFissure: Was Heseltine a Stalking Horse?

November 3rd, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

As mentioned in the previous post, on TrussGate, the Parallax Brief thinks it’s pretty obvious that from here on in the election is there for the Conservative Party to win. From this position, only they can lose it. Labour has been in power too long and the economy and public finances are in too much of a mess for Brown and Mandelson to hope to win by communicating a positive narrative about their vision for the future of the country. What they can (and likely will) do, however, is take the Karl Rove route and hammer away at Tory stereotypes (which is why Cameron must deal adroitly with TrussGate), and traditional fissures, the primary of which is Europe.

The Parallax Brief actually believes that so bad are the divisions on Europe that the Conservative Party has an (albeit incredibly small) chance of splitting on the matter.

Make no mistake, Mandelson will be leveraging at those cracks with everything he can muster every single day.

Cameron will have to, like Blair with the left wing of his party, keep iron discipline between now and summer 2010.

Which is why it was a great surprise for the Parallax Brief to see Michael Heseltine out of his iron lung and in front of a microphone complaining about David Cameron’s Eurosceptic decision to move the European Parliamentary Conservative Party away from the mainstream centre.

The only explanation the Parallax Brief can think of is that the more Europhile of the Conservative Party have tired of the Eurosceptics of the Telegraph and ConservativeHome dominating the intra-Tory debate from an anti-Europe platform, but are mindful of the wrath they would incur for opening up the party’s vulnerable European underbelly to the media. In such a scenario, Heseltine, with weight of reputation behind him but not beholden to the CCHQ mafia, would make the ideal stalking horse.

And perhaps he has. Certainly, it seems unlikely that this was a lone gunman case, something like the Last Temptation of Tarzan. Clearly, now that Lisbon looks as if it will be ratified by the Czech Republic, Mr Cameron and William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, will have some tough choices to make, and it seems that the lobbyists on both sides of the argument are gearing up for the fight.

Tags [ , , , , , , , , ]

Categories [ International Affairs, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

EU Presidency: Flawed but Blair

October 26th, 2009 by The Parallax Brief

Tony Blair is clearly a deeply flawed choice to be the first EU president. Until such time as Iraq escapes its brutal cycle of corruption, lawlessness and horrific sectarian violence, his credibility and standing around the world will forever be tarnished by his decision to join Dubya’s escapade in Iraq — especially in Europe, where most leaders were vehemently against the war, and the diplomatically vital Middle East, which bore the full brunt of the folly. His centrist (some would argue centre-right) views and belief in the so-called Anglo-Saxon model of finance would clash with the left-of-centre/social democracies and more regulated financial world to be found in Europe’s traditional seats of power.

Blair even hails from what is probably the most anti-Europe of the core members. Not only that, but he wasn’t really a proactive Europhile within that Euro-sceptic nation.

But we should still actively back his candidacy. Why? Will Hutton hits has the goods (emphasis mine):

Tony Blair is a flawed candidate for the EU presidency. He was not a brave pro-European at home. He sided with American neocons. He invaded Iraq. He would inflame British euro-sceptics. But he is the best British candidate. Britain would have an opportunity to lead the EU, and an inside track on trade, security and financial issues. His vision of Europe as a group of nation states finding common cause to advance common interests is realistic. Best to back our man, however imperfect, than refuse a prize that might not come our way again for decades.

Tags [ , , ]

Categories [ International Affairs, UK Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]