Miliband for Brussels, Continued Recession Woes & the Motives of Medvedev

With the Lisbon Treaty now a historic reality rather than an uncertain possibility following its ratification by the Czech Republic, a specially convened EU summit next week called by Sweden will finally decide who gets the new top jobs of EU Council President and EU Foreign Minister. 

Two things do seem certain - neither of these two posts will have a Brit appointed to them. This to me is a mistake. I do understand the rants and ravings from some EU leaders that Britain doesn't deserve one of the new posts due to its fervent Euroscepticism - it is not part of the euro, nor the passport-free Schengen agreement and the impending regime change in Westminster next May will bring in a Conservative government more handicapped by anti-EUism than even John Major's stricken government was in the 1990s. David Cameron is to be applauded for not caving into the ludicrous calls for a referendum for the sake of a referendum from some of the fanatically anti-EU members of the party, such as Daniel Hannan and David Davis but his promises to repatriate certain powers from Brussels will indeed come back to haunt him - to do that would require treaty renegotiations and the other 26 nations are in absolutely no mood to do this after the long slog of getting Lisbon ratified.

Britain's prime candidate for the presidency, Tony Blair, seems to have failed in his quest, as early support from Nicholas Sarkozy has drained away and Angela Merkel remains sceptical about a Blair presidency. Heck, Blair never even confirmed publicly that he wanted the job, it has been the British Government that has pushed the bid. It seems that Sarkozy and Merkel prefer more of a "chairman" figure in the Presidency, hence the growing support for an appointment of a Benelux politician (and if it has to be one of these, I still support Jean-Claude Junker, Luxembourg's PM). For the foreign Mmnister post, David Miliband, Britain's current Foreign Secretary became the focus of gossip and rumours but he has claimed that he does not want the post and will remain loyally with the sinking ship that is the Labour Party. Thus, as a second-preference candidate, I would plump for Italy's former foreign minister and prime minister, Massimo D'Alema, who does have the charisma and negotiating skills necessary to ensure the EU becomes a leading voice in world affairs.

David Miliband is amazingly well-qualified to be the EU's foreign minister. Young, charismatic, internationally known and he has built a good relationship with the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, an essential prerequisite if the foreign minister post is to become successful. He shouldn't give up the chance of becoming part of history by stubbornly staying loyal to a party which is doomed to electoral wipeout at the next election. Yes, he may become the leader of the Labour Party post-election, but as "The Times" rightly pointed out, his chances of becoming Prime Minister are incredibly slim. And he actually enjoys and cherishes his job as Foreign Secretary - he has an immense amount of energy and devotion to the role, which could easily be transferred to the European level. Being the foreign representative of 27 nations would be a incredible challenge for him, one which I'm sure he would exceed at. For Blair, I've always been much more skeptical about him taking the Presidency, being such a divisive figure. The only real benefit he would bring to the job is his international profile and his ability to command attention at international summits. My instinct still says "no" to a Blair presidency, but like David Cameron, one has to aim to be pragmatic with such issues.

A Brit should have one of the posts and it should be David Miliband. Not only does Britain have an amazing candidate in him for the foreign minister post (regardless of the fact he supposedly doesn't want it) and he should be judged on those assets alone, rather than his nationality but having a Brit in a top Brussels position could - and this is a very hopeful "could" - begin to engage the British with Europe, if they know that one of "their own" is representing the entire EU on a world level. 

Also, a top Brit in Brussels, particularly one as well-respected as Miliband could not be ignored by a new Conservative government in London - in fact, I think there is plenty of scope and professional understanding between William Hague and Miliband to work together on a number of important foreign issues crucial to the interests of Britain and the EU as a whole. The Conservatives would find it much easier to work with Miliband in Brussels than they would Blair in Brussels.

_____________________________________________________

In an updated recession tally, Britain is now joined only by Spain as the two major world economies still contracting. Italy exited recession in the third quarter, much sooner than expected (to the Italians as well, I imagine) and Russia has recorded 13.9% growth in the same quarter. Both the eurozone economy and the EU as a whole grew and France and Germany also continued expanding for the second quarter in a row, even though both grew slower than most economists had forecast.

The claims by Gordon Brown that Britain was better placed to weather the financial storm now look completely hollow and utopian. It was plain to see even at the beginning of our fall from grace back in autumn 2008 that our indebted society, obsession with house prices, the subsequent inflated property bubble and the importance of financial services ensured that our economy was least prepared out of all major economies to recover from the credit crunch. Next week, new figures will come out relating to Britain's economic performance in the third quarter and so there is still the slight possibility that they will be revised to show fractional growth - but don't bet on it.

_____________________________________________________

This week, President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia gave his annual State of the Union address, which brought surprise to ardent Russia-watchers, such as myself. To those of us who believe that Medvedev is merely a "puppet-president", keeping the throne warm before PM Vladimir Putin takes the presidency again in 2012, the address seemed to be Medvedev's way of telling us that we're wrong. That he is the man in control and Putin is HIS subordinate.

The part of the speech that most interested me was his call for the diversification of Russia's "Soviet-era" economy, away from a dependence on commodity exports, ironically as a rise in commodity prices and stability on the world's markets have allowed Russia to record double-digit economic growth for the third quarter. He also called for the rooting out of deeply entrenched corruption in both the Russian economy and Russian politics. It has always been my argument that Russia will never achieve its aim of becoming a major world power again, regardless of how many little Caucasus countries it invades or Eastern European nations it threatens unless it drastically overhauls its economy. Russian economic success is perilously dependent on a fluctuating commodity market.

Such a drastic overhaul though of the kind that Medvedev envisages would not be easy in any sense of the word - the obstacles facing such reform are staggering; societal issues, such as poverty, pitiful education provision resulting in an unskilled workforce, high levels of crime in the major cities, alcoholism and a shameful life expectancy rate. Political issues such as entrenched corruption, the continued chaos in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan and North Ossetia, the drift to authoritarianism in the political system, the growth of radical nationalism, human rights abuses and stifling of the free press - these are all factors that keep foreign investors away from Russia.

And of course, there's the biggest obstacle of them all - Medvedev's own prime minister. It was Putin who created the Russia of today, along with all of its problems during his eight year presidency. By stoking nationalism, state control and the eroding of civil liberties, he has duped the vast majority of Russians into believing that Russia is strong again and that Putin was the man who achieved this. With Medvedev now saying the opposite, it will cause this carefully painted conception to be questioned. How far Putin allows this to go - especially as he is already whetting his lips for the presidency in 2012 - is anyone's guess, but I don't think Medvedev's speech will enable him to throw off the claim of "puppet-president" anytime soon.

Silence is Golden... Except on President Blair

So, the Conservative Party conference has kicked off in Manchester and, as easily predicted, attention has turned to David Cameron's policy stance on the Lisbon Treaty following the confirmation of Ireland's "yes" vote yesterday. The furiously Eurosceptic wing of the Party is demanding a referendum on the Treaty in the UK regardless of whether or not all 27 member-states have ratified it by the time of the general election. Boris Johnson - always the political stirrer - has even come out publicly declaring there should be a referendum regardless of the situation in May, a move that must have infuriated Cameron. And of course, William Hague has also hinted of a referendum no matter what the eventual outcome.

Cameron has quickly reiterated that there will be no new discussion of Europe at the party conference and that "we cannot have more than one policy" - he is standing by his pledge that only IF the Treaty hasn't been fully ratified will the British be asked to reject it in a referendum. His reasoning, he has tried to assure the press and his own party is that he does not want to potentially influence the outcome of the ratification processes in the Czech Republic and Poland. However, the emergence of news that he has secretly written to the Czech President outlining his views on Lisbon just smacks of dirty politics and hypocrisy.

I reiterate what I wrote yesterday - that Cameron must remain pragmatic and his best option at present is to wait and see what happens in Warsaw and Prague (and not write secretive, shady letters to the Heads of State of those countries that one may prsume is interfering in their domestic politics). Already, he must be very careful with what he says and implies, for the risk of making very real enemies in Paris, Berlin and throughout the Union before he's even elected Prime Minister. Obviously, another prime factor in his thinking must be the memories of recent history and how the Conservative Party tore itself apart in the 1990s over the Maastricht Treaty - he will be desperate to ensure Party unity at all costs at least until after the election.

In contrast, one European issue I'm very happy for the Party to kick up a fuss about is the very real prospect of a "President Blair" of the European Union. This is rather a populist term for the post - in reality, the man (or woman) appointed to this post would only be President of the Council of Ministers and the it would be primarily a ceremonial position with few powers attached. The easy rationale here is that the President of the Council would not be a Head of State or Government of one of the member-states, unlike the other members of the Council and thus will not even be a man (or woman) among equals, but will be merely a secondary figure, with the real authority remaining with the Head of States/Government.

The rationale for a President Blair is also easy to understand - on the surface. Blair is a very prominent and recognisable former world leader. He would give an easily recognisable face to a Union which often causes confusion at important diplomatic summits due to the number of officials claiming to be representing Europe. And, not only that, but he would be also be easily recognisable to most of the 400 million European citizens, most of whom have very little idea of what the European Union actually does.

However, Blair's ability to be easily recognised is for completely the wrong reasons - first, Blair was responsible for the biggest political fallout in recent European history due to his unwavering support for the Iraq War. OK, other European leaders did support the war as well, but Blair was the main ringleader. Many European citizens (and governments for that matter) still deeply resent his support of a war which was seen as illegal, unnecessary and deeply flawed. They will not want him to be their symbolic representative of the EU and EU interests on the international stage. Blair is also seen by many European leaders as a failure in making the British pro-European and as William Hague pointed out, appointing Blair would cause deep resentment among the British public who had come to rejoice when Blair left office in 2007 and would not assist in selling the European project to the most Eurosceptic population in the entire Union.

Instead, the post should go to a true European statesman, who has worked hard to consolidate, strengthen and further the European project - I personally would allow the position to go to the long-term Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Junker. Alas, his only fallback is that he doesn't have the international profile of Blair and would be a relative unknown to absolutely every EU citizen who isn't from Luxembourg (and that's most of them). 

Maybe though, after looking at Blair's less-than-perfect record, that isn't a bad thing... 

Hooray for an Irish "Yes" - but Cameron's European Nightmare is Just Beginning...

I am absolutely ecstatic that the Irish have voted "Yes" on the European Union's Lisbon Treaty in their second referendum on the issue. With the Irish dilemma finally solved, one hopes that there will be quick ratifications from the only other two EU member-states yet to do so - Poland and the Czech Republic. Poland is expected to ratify quickly, but the Czech Republic may prove a bit of a foot-dragger due to the Treaty being put before Prague's Constitutional Court to decide its compatibility with the Czech constitution.

Regardless of the probable hesitation from Prague, I would still hedge a bet that by the time of the next British general election (due in May 2010), all 27 member-states of the European Union would have ratified Lisbon and this would be a very good thing. Why? Because, of one certain pledge that the next Prime Minister of this country (and who I will be voting for) has given; if Lisbon has not been fully ratified by all member-states by the time the Conservative Party enters office, there will be a British referendum on the Treaty.

This would the worst political error David Cameron could possibly make. Forcing a referendum following full ratification would bring chaos to the European Union (as the British would vote 'no'), would cause an enormous and bitter feud with our partners in Paris, Berlin and other European capitals, make Britain the pariah state of the Union and quite likely

cause a diplomatic row with the Obama Administration, which, like previous US administrations, would love to see the emergence of a cohesive, strong and unified European Union that would be a vital ally in an emerging multipolar world. There also exists the very real possibility that such a foolish move would re-create the bitter division of the Conservative Party over Europe that tore it apart during John Major's premiership. In essence, the Conservative Government that I - and the majority of British voters - hope to see propelled into office in May would be a lame duck before it even gets started.

However, one may argue that I'm being too gloomy - if Lisbon is fully ratified before the election, then we have nothing to worry about. Cameron's pledge was IF the treaty hadn't been fully ratified, then he would deliver the promised referendum. Oh no, my friend... what gravely worries me is Cameron's vague declaration that even if full ratification had taken place, a Conservative Government "would not let matters rest there". So even if a referendum does not happen in Britain, it is very likely that Britain under Cameron will kick up a hissy-fit anyway in Brussels concerning the Treaty and cause the same negative reactions predicted above regardless.

Now, I often wonder just how Eurosceptic Cameron actually is and my instinct is that secretly, he is either indifferent to Brussels or tentatively pro-European. Obviously, he cannot reveal this, as his entire progressive, 'caring' brand of conservatism does ultimately rest on the support of the (anti-EU) Party Old Guard. Also, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague is infamous for his Euro-scepticism and as a former party leader (who equally infamously lost the 2001 election with his simplistic, populist slogan "Save the Pound") has much influence within the Party. One truly hopes that following the election, Cameron will feel secure in his authority to be able to show his true colours and opinions and unshackle himself from the chains of the Old Guard... or risk a bitter and damaging feud within the Party which Labour would be able to instantly pounce on.

Thus, if full ratification of Lisbon has occurred by the time the Conservatives enter government, I pray and implore Cameron to let matters lie, at the risk of completely isolating Britain within the EU and potentially causing a devastating split within the Party before we've even got started on repairing and reforming Britain. Remember, the UK is still in recession, the budget deficit needs to be tamed, millions are unemployed and there are grave social problems that still need to be addressed - these are the real issues and these are what we should be fully concentrating on.

Today, David Cameron must be watching the referendum results in Ireland with great anxiety - but it doesn't need to cause him anxiety. The matter is all but closed. Being a strong leader is not just about ramming home your principles and values at all costs - it's about knowing your limitations as well. And with this, I must re-emphasise - LET MATTERS LIE.