The end of pro-active Europe before it could even begin
In an astounding act of collective self-harm, EU leaders have chosen the perfect partnership of mediocrity and disappointment to be their Council President and Foreign Affairs representative.
The appointments managed to surprise and disappoint everybody in every country of every political persuasion. The Guardian and the Daily Mail’s front pages called it “the great EU stitch-up” and the French have been even more damning. The left-leaning Libération paper said you couldn’t get a simpler Belgian cliché than van Rompuy, while the former right-wing President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who drafted the original Constitution, said that “The Europeans have not picked a George Washington.”
Baroness Ashton has been equally dismissed for her lack of notoriety and experience, being called a “Labour apparatchik” chosen purely for convenience due to gender and political affiliation. Sarkozy and Merkel were uncompromising on the President, demanding someone from their own centre right group. Some say Brown negotiated Ashton’s position as a trade-off for Blair (which nobody believed) though a lot of the bargaining was conducted by Martin Shultz, Socialist Group President in the EU.

What these appointments really show, however, is a retreat into Fortress Europe. The ticket was sold on the basis that Europe would finally have a telephone number, that it could be a major player on the world stage, and that it could speak with one loud and clear voice. Though instead, the EU Leaders chose a chairman over a leader.
The choice marks a massive change in strategy for the EU. The widening process has finished with the transition of Eastern European countries, and van Rompuy is happy to keep Turkey out of the EU to satisfy his own Catholic view of Europe. The EU is no longer looking outwards and though the Benelux countries are still broadly Federalist, it is evidently impossible for Van Rompuy to launch any presidential attempts to push the EU in that direction. France and Germany both have their least federally-inclined heads of state for decades, and Britain has always been cool on the idea. The three combined form a blockade impenetrable by the president’s diminished stature.
It shows that the EU and the European nations are still not ready to take on the responsibility that comes with world power. By choosing a typically meek unknown politician from nowhere, Europe has chosen to become a typically meek arrangement of old, shrinking former empires.
The lack of initiative is pathological amongst European nations. The consequence is thus that we will continue to be left with a reactive Europe; it looks to the east with fear as Putin turns off the oil, starts wars where he likes and strangles what is left of Russian democracy, a tired Europe that can no longer keep up with the rising economic powerhouses of China and India.
We are left with a Europe that continues to look to the west and take its cues from America, as it has done for the last half-century. Europe never learns that the US President is a national leader with international power, and will always act in national interests over those of Europe and other nations.
The continent now has a small, grey character to match this group of small, grey nations. It is the end of a Europe that can stand up for itself and act independently before it even had the chance to see it.



November 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Good article mate,
Was baffled when they chose those two, although I would be interested for you to propose who would have been a better choice?
I actually think Miliband would have been OK for the Foreign Secretary role, and wouldn't have been averse to Tony Blair, but it was an astounding lack of options from major powers that forced this incompetent and crippling choice:
Germany has Merkel
France has Sarkozy
Italy has Berlusconi
UK has Gordon Brown…
do you see where I am coming from here? none of these candidates stand out enough for you to say, 'yes – that is our candidate'
They all have too many flaws (Sarko and Berlusconi) or not enough character (Brown, Merkel), this leads me to believe that Blair would have been a good choice were it not for the small-minded thinkers out there in Europe.
Europe has indeed broken its own legs before it could even stand up
[Reply]
Hadleigh Roberts Reply:
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Can't say fairer than that, Jack! Nice phrasing on the last sentence as well.
Though you're right to say we live in an age of political pygmies rather than giants, the four you list there would never have been able to make it because they a;ready have a pretty good deal. Much as I'd love Brown to step down and move on… Tony Blair was the only decent candidate on the list. Felipe Gonzalez could have been good but he didn't run for it as he's been retired for about 10 years now. Chirac would have probably been less popular than Blair, considering how he "used to" run the EU!
[Reply]
Hadleigh Roberts Reply:
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Can't say fairer than that, Jack! Nice phrasing on the last sentence as well.
Though you're right to say we live in an age of political pygmies rather than giants, the four you list there would never have been able to make it because they a;ready have a pretty good deal. Much as I'd love Brown to step down and move on… Tony Blair was the only decent candidate on the list. Felipe Gonzalez could have been good but he didn't run for it as he's been retired for about 10 years now. Chirac would have probably been less popular than Blair, considering how he "used to" run the EU!
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Good article, Hadleigh.
Mmm..just who are Herman van Rumpy Pumpy (sorry, couldn't resist) and Lady Ashton? Even ol' Gord referred to her as Lady Ashdown (then again he's not really good with names, is he?).The Lisbon Treaty, aka The EU Constitution in disguise, has been passed under the table and there is nothing we can do about it. It took them years of schmoozing and now the EU has finally got what they wanted all along. Yes, blame the Me-di-uhh for not covering EU properly or fairly, but the fact remains that we never had a say in this farce.
The despicable Lady Ashton (and if they HAD to have a woman there, they could have least got a more attractive one, right?!) has never held an elected post in her life and also happened to marry well. Furthermore, don't you think the supposed CND and Marxist links are something we should be concerned about in her important role of foreign secretary?
Tony Blair would've been a better choice, yes, but I think the EU president/chairman post is a waste of money (and with a salary higher than Obama's, quite a vast waste at that)..but at least people know who he is.
As for David Millipede, and this may be old news, but do we really want a dhimwhit foreign secretary that was complicent, with the rest of the Labour Party, in giving a voice to raging anti-Semites such as Ibrahim Mousawi but banned 'Islamophobe' Geert Wilders, and then went to pass fierce, hysterical judgement on his film 'Fitna' without actually having seen it? Other than that, seems an alright bloke, I think someone just put words in his mouth, bless him. Not strong enough for an EU post. Then again, who cares? We can't elect who gets the most important EU posts anyway!
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Have to say I agree that van Rumpoy and Ashton aren't the greatest choices, although the problem is that Europe lacks any clear, divisible leadership/ vision right now.
I don't think Tony Blair would've been right, too divisive but he's the only one with enough charism to have pulled people together and laid out a direction.
The reason van Rompuy got the job though is that everyone else wanted someone who will chair meetings and find agreement. And Sarkozy and Merkel didn't want someone who will challenge them.
I still think the creation of the posts is a good thing though, adding more continuity to the EU and the added power that the EU Parliament gets from the Lisbon Treaty is pushing it in the right direction to address the democratic deficit (although much more can be done).
[Reply]
November 29th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
A lot of people were communists and marxists and then went on to become centre left politicians…its called growing up. Jack Straw was a communist in university…it was the 60s, he probably also dropped acid and smoked weed, but who cares its trivial its the past.
[Reply]
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Thanks for the replies folks, just want to back track a little bit…I realise I got a bit overworked (!). What can I say, I overdid it on the coffee…
The main reason for me not being in favour of the Ashton choice is that she has never held an elected post and that we did not elect her this time. The CND links were actually more recent and she would definitely have not been a student at the time, ie. someone fully aware of what she was doing….albeit it is in the past. While I would have love to seen Jack Straw at uni dropping some pills, some might say (not myself precisely) that he seems pretty 'liberal' with immigration policy (…cue free publicity for the BNP).
The role of EU Chairman seems a bit arbitrary and from reading an article about it some weeks ago (when they were talking about Blair´s credibility for the role) in The Guardian, the job description seemed a bit too vague. Granted, maybe they do need someone to bring it all together and I'm starting to see that in some ways Rompuy was a good choice (haha, you got me!) although he may not have much clout at the moment in global politics. Sarkozy or Berlusconi would have been very entertaining indeed but a complete disaster.
Maybe Joe Public feels a bit stung that these people have been given roles with huge salaries, given that 1) he fails to see how Ashton and Rompuy are legitimate candidates and 2)especially at a time when people are still losing jobs and that another few hundred grand per annum being thrown around in the face of debt into the billions seems rather….illogical. I'm all for Europe as a common market and for the cultural links but don't expect people to be happy when such a controversial treaty is ratified without the say of the people it 'serves,' and that unelected 'representatives' are given the top jobs. Having said that, maybe Rompuy will turn out to be a puppet after all…
I guess only time will tell. However, I would have liked to have had a choice in that matter. But in this sense Gordon Brown is not an elected politician either – therefore, quite rightly, how can Brits such as myself complain about a democratic deficit when it is rife in their own country?!
And the Milliband comment was a slight rant, though it shows the bias of our government when it comes to minorites. Moussawi was admitted even after the law prohibiting incitement to religious or racial hatred was passed. In short, I would not want a complete hypocrite filling Ashton´s post either.
[Reply]
Hadleigh Roberts Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
For the sake of continuing the debate, I'll add a few final points.
I don't see how Ashton being "unelected" disqualifies her for an "unelected" position. In fact she's used to it! What you have to remember is that the posts are diplomatic rather than political; you don't vote for the Ambassador to the UN or the Consulate General to New Zealand. To this extent we can see the decision making process; Ashton (and van Rompuy) are to listen to elected Heads of State/Government, then interpret and relay those sentiments to the rest of the world.
I don't know where the idea of Sarkozy, Merkel or anyone like that has come from. All of whom are in the middle of their mandates having fought very hard to get where they are now. Merkel has just won a legislative election, Sarkozy has a very easy ride politically (friends everywhere) and Berlusconi controls all the media anyway.
The problem with Britain moaning about democracy is that it views "British Democracy" as more democratic than any European system. People complain about Lord Mandelson being an unelected minister, but just look across to France; half the government has never been elected and that's normal. Dominique de Villepin, the (former) Prime Minister was a career diplomat.
Thus we have to make the distinction that something can be democratic, just in a different way to our own system.
Coming to our own system, Hannah, you haven't quite understood it, I think. At the risk of repeating myself, Brown IS elected. He was elected in 1983, and RE-elected every four-or-so-years since then, the latest being 2005, with all the rest. We don't vote for the Prime Minister and never have done because the Executive is drawn from the Legislative, which is where the confusion comes from.
If you want to talk about elected/unelected leaders of the country, go and talk to the Queen about it!
[Reply]
Hadleigh Roberts Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
For the sake of continuing the debate, I'll add a few final points.
I don't see how Ashton being "unelected" disqualifies her for an "unelected" position. In fact she's used to it! What you have to remember is that the posts are diplomatic rather than political; you don't vote for the Ambassador to the UN or the Consulate General to New Zealand. To this extent we can see the decision making process; Ashton (and van Rompuy) are to listen to elected Heads of State/Government, then interpret and relay those sentiments to the rest of the world.
I don't know where the idea of Sarkozy, Merkel or anyone like that has come from. All of whom are in the middle of their mandates having fought very hard to get where they are now. Merkel has just won a legislative election, Sarkozy has a very easy ride politically (friends everywhere) and Berlusconi controls all the media anyway.
The problem with Britain moaning about democracy is that it views "British Democracy" as more democratic than any European system. People complain about Lord Mandelson being an unelected minister, but just look across to France; half the government has never been elected and that's normal. Dominique de Villepin, the (former) Prime Minister was a career diplomat.
Thus we have to make the distinction that something can be democratic, just in a different way to our own system.
Coming to our own system, Hannah, you haven't quite understood it, I think. At the risk of repeating myself, Brown IS elected. He was elected in 1983, and RE-elected every four-or-so-years since then, the latest being 2005, with all the rest. We don't vote for the Prime Minister and never have done because the Executive is drawn from the Legislative, which is where the confusion comes from.
If you want to talk about elected/unelected leaders of the country, go and talk to the Queen about it!
[Reply]
December 18th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Aahh, alas I despair then…I meant that we did not elect Brown as PM, and now it turns out we can't strictly elect the PM anyway ……the mind boggles…
Mmm. Doesn't the PM have more political clout than old Queeny? Both unelected! Please enlighten me, I do like the politics lessons.
[Reply]
Hadleigh Roberts Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Constitutionally (rather than "strictly") we didn't elect Gordon Brown (unless you happen to live in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath). By the same token, only the good people of Sedgefield elected Tony Blair, only those in Huntingdon elected John Major, only those in Finchley elected Thatcher and so on down the line.
Such are the rules of parliamentary democracy. On the other hand, a presidential system like in the USA (and Latin America, if you want to go into it) does elect the head of state directly (USA has an electoral college so there is a bit of admin in between), who then appoints the rest of the government. France is an interesting example of a semi-presidential system, where they have a President AND a Prime Minister. I could go on…
As for Britain, yes, in day-to-day practice the PM is more important than the Queen. I can't really understand why people want a monarchy, but opinion is currently in favour of it.
If you have anything you want answered specifically, do email me, and I'll write a full post about it.
[Reply]
Hadleigh Roberts Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Constitutionally (rather than "strictly") we didn't elect Gordon Brown (unless you happen to live in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath). By the same token, only the good people of Sedgefield elected Tony Blair, only those in Huntingdon elected John Major, only those in Finchley elected Thatcher and so on down the line.
Such are the rules of parliamentary democracy. On the other hand, a presidential system like in the USA (and Latin America, if you want to go into it) does elect the head of state directly (USA has an electoral college so there is a bit of admin in between), who then appoints the rest of the government. France is an interesting example of a semi-presidential system, where they have a President AND a Prime Minister. I could go on…
As for Britain, yes, in day-to-day practice the PM is more important than the Queen. I can't really understand why people want a monarchy, but opinion is currently in favour of it.
If you have anything you want answered specifically, do email me, and I'll write a full post about it.
[Reply]
December 20th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Yeah, seems a lot clearer now when you compare it to the US of A.
Thanks, just found this on Guido Fawke's blog (a libertarian one…):
"Today’s conference speakers include Gordon Brown, the Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez; and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. None of whom were elected head of government in open, free and fair elections."
Though I wouldn't put Brown in the same deranged personality bucket as Mugabe and Chavez, don't you think he has a point here?
[Reply]
Hadleigh Roberts Reply:
December 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
I'm familiar with Guido's site, he's not really libertarian, he's a Tory who pretends to be independent. (But that's another story…) He deals exclusively in gutter politics, really tabloid stuff.
To come to your question, no, I don't think he has a point. Chavez and Mugabe are elected on the USA system, albeit through fraud and cheating. At the risk of repeating myself, Brown, on the other hand, was elected as MP in the "free and fair" elections of 2005 and the rest was done "by the book" as any other PM would have done.
Guido, typically, is using a common misunderstanding to serve his own agenda. I'd ignore him.
[Reply]
Hadleigh Roberts Reply:
December 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
I'm familiar with Guido's site, he's not really libertarian, he's a Tory who pretends to be independent. (But that's another story…) He deals exclusively in gutter politics, really tabloid stuff.
To come to your question, no, I don't think he has a point. Chavez and Mugabe are elected on the USA system, albeit through fraud and cheating. At the risk of repeating myself, Brown, on the other hand, was elected as MP in the "free and fair" elections of 2005 and the rest was done "by the book" as any other PM would have done.
Guido, typically, is using a common misunderstanding to serve his own agenda. I'd ignore him.
[Reply]
July 14th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Lady Europe what more can we say. Always acting so sloppy and slow.
[Reply]