January 30, 2007
Brown’s Brussels raid: short but sweet?
A rare sighting of Gordon Brown in Brussels on Tuesday, which dutifully followed his usual routine for Ecofin councils. Namely the British press in London is briefed in advance on the lecture he intends to deliver to fellow finance ministers - this time on the failings of the EU’s single market.
Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer then turns up at the meeting and delivers the message that other finance ministers have already read about in the morning papers. Then he flies home again. Job done.
"He’s right of course," says one Ecofin participant. "His observations on the single market and what needs to be done are valid, but the way he does it is counter-productive. He comes across as arrogant, he doesn’t get involved in networking."
Around Europe, they are dreading Brown’s move next door to Number 10. Even his ideological allies despair over his uncollegiate behaviour.
But there is another way of looking at the chancellor’s visit to Brussels. The report jointly produced by the UK Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry is a solid piece of work, looking at the bottlenecks and restrictive practices holding back the EU economy.
At least this report suggests Brown is thinking about Europe. The problems he identifies in fields like telecommunications, energy, financial services and postal services are exactly the ones causing most concern in the European Commission.
The task for Brown is to take a lead in Europe and help the liberal-minded Barroso Commission break down the cosy cartels and closed shops he hates. That means working with Brussels and ending his practice of portraying the Commission as a blundering red-tape machine, incapable of enforcing competition rules.
If that happens, prime minister Brown could make a difference. But he will soon realise - if he hasn’t already - that he can produce all the weighty reports he likes, but without allies and friends in Europe they will count for nothing.
Brown might have a certain liberal economic view and many here in this country might heartily agree with it.
But if other European countries do not agree with opening their postal services, railways, energy suppliers etc. to competition (many will say with some justification), why should we try to ‘lead’ the EU into imposing that course on them?
That’s hardly a democratic attitude.
Just as so many democracy-supporters say ‘what right have they…’, about many EU-derived impositions, similarly what right have we to seek to force other countries to comply with our economic principles, in many cases against the wishes of their voters?
It’s a two way street. The EU isn’t only bad news when it does something that doesn’t suit us.
This is why it’s increasingly being said that there’s nothing pro-European about the EU. Its presence diminishes respect for Europe’s diversity and democracy.
It’s why *true* pro-Europeans actually oppose the EU.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | January 31st, 2007 at 6:07 pm | Report this commentCome on get real! Are you seriously suggesting that one part of the political system should not try to push its policy preferences on another? If you extrapolate that logic, you end up with the end of politics and management by technocrats, and not just at EU level, but at national level too! That is really an anti-democratic position.
Of course Brown is right to try and push his views on the rest of the EU - the whole point of the EU is that there is a structural and procedural framework for that kind of debate to take place. Imagine the mess if he tried to do it bilaterally. And indeed the lack of transparency.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pm | Report this commentPushing ideas through *debate* is of course valid. As you say, that is the essence of politics.
But the posting wasn’t just about Brown doing that. And as most will know well, the EU is very much more than merely a ‘framework for debate’.
The posting suggested Brown teaming up with the Commission to force countries to ‘liberalise’ various industries that *he* might well like to see happen, but those elected governments of other countries are clearly not keen on doing. Very likely because their voters would not support it.
By all means Brown should argue for his chosen political or economic outlook in whatever national or international forums available.
But considering ‘leading’ the EU system towards enforcing his view on unwilling legitimately elected governments should be unacceptable. To a democrat, at least.
My point is it’s a two way street. Those who support such behaviour against other countries just because they like the ideas involved cannot then whinge when other unwelcome EU laws get imposed on us.
Such a pro-democracy outlook supports international debate and co-operation, but respects diversity. Hence it conflicts sharply with the EU’s activities and out-dated ideology.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | February 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pm | Report this commentI am with you on the two way street and the point that what’s fair for the French is fair for the UK. A country shouldn’t complain about being led by the EU to do something against the government’s will when that government does the same to other countries through the EU. You do have to be consistent.
But I still think your position on Brown “leading” the EU is not democratic. Let’s apply the logic to a national context. Would you really be against your MP pushing a Private Member’s Bill through the Commons simply because other MPs might vote against it? Where’s the democracy in that?
The point is that the framework for policy making (Parliament in my analogy, or the EU in the case at issue) exists, and that actors within that political game are legitimately interested in pushing their policy agendas on other actors.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 1st, 2007 at 3:33 pm | Report this commentI am with you on the two way street and the point that what’s fair for the French is fair for the UK. A country shouldn’t complain about being led by the EU to do something against the government’s will when that government does the same to other countries through the EU. You do have to be consistent.
But I still think your position on Brown “leading” the EU is not democratic. Let’s apply the logic to a national context. Would you really be against your MP pushing a Private Member’s Bill through the Commons simply because other MPs might vote against it? Where’s the democracy in that?
The point is that the framework for policy making (Parliament in my analogy, or the EU in the case at issue) exists, and that actors within that political game are legitimately interested in pushing their policy agendas on other actors.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pm | Report this commentI still think your position on Brown leading the EU is not democratic. Let’s apply the logic to a national context. Would you really be against your MP pushing a Private Member’s Bill through the Commons simply because other MPs might vote against it? Where’s the democracy in that?
The point is that the framework for policy making (Parliament in my analogy, or the EU in the case at issue) exists, and that actors within that political game are legitimately interested in pushing their policy agendas on other actors.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 1st, 2007 at 4:42 pm | Report this commentWould you really be against your MP pushing a Private Member’s Bill through the Commons simply because other MPs might vote against it? Where’s the democracy in that? The point is that the framework for policy making (Parliament in my analogy, or the EU in the case at issue) exists, and that actors within that political game are legitimately interested in pushing their policy agendas on other actors.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 1st, 2007 at 4:42 pm | Report this commentSorry about the multiple posts - I was getting errors and assumed they were not being posted.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 am | Report this commentSame errors caused me to duplicate on another section.
Anyway, I think the difference between the situation and your analogy is that what Brown is being encouraged to use the EU to do will not be subject to a vote. The Commission alone already has the power to enforce action in this particular area.
Those who object to undemocratic bodies having such considerable power over Britain’s affairs will logically also object to our own politicians using such bodies to force legitimately elected governments of *other* countries into doing something they do not wish to do.
Those who aren’t disturbed by excess power without representation, and who don’t mind the two way street of the EU imposing things on us in return - because such a situation generally supports further progress in the EU’s 1950s centralist direction that they favour - would perfectly plausibly not be so disturbed about Brown using the Commission to enforce his particular point of view.
That seems to be the (pretty usual) division on the EU issue. Just don’t kid yourself that this latter view is a democratic outlook.
It’s an ideological one, prioritising the political growth of the EU above basic human rights like the ability of all Europeans to hold our rulers to account.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | February 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm | Report this commentI must say I find your point about the thing not being subject to a vote quite weak. First of all, I am pretty sure that a large amount of what he is pushing for would involve revisions of existing legislation, which would in fact require votes.
Secondly, this is not about Brown haranguing the Commission, but Member States.
Thirdly, the powers that the Commission has is a given, and your original objection was to things being done to increase the powers of the EU.
The point being that it doesn’t seem to me to make sense to object to Brown or any other politician pushing for policy changes in the EU.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 2nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm | Report this commentFirst, would not ‘breaking down cosy cartels and closed shops’ come under the headings of ‘competition’, or at least ‘internal market’.
I was given to understand that the Commission has an exclusive competence to ensure compliance in this area.
So the idea of no vote is not quite so ‘weak’.
Second, the posting was indeed about ‘Brown leading the Commission’ - see its second to last para.
Third, the powers the Commission already has are far from a ‘given’, from my point of view. I would have thought my original comment made that quite clear.
An undemocratic body should not have the right to force any elected European government to do anything against its will - no matter how economically favourable or efficient we might think such actions. I repeat, thinking such a body should be able to is not a democratic outlook.
Fourth, as I said before yet you persist in misrepresenting, I don’t object to Brown ‘pushing for policy changes’ in any international fora - through debate.
However I do object to Brown agititating for the Commission to use its powers to force countries to do things they do not want to do - most likely because such changes would be unpopular with their voters.
It is wrong in principle. And in practice it removes Brown’s right to complain when another country agitates the Commission into hitting him with something *he* doesn’t like.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | February 2nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm | Report this commentStuart apologies for misiniterpreting your comments. But I still don’t understand why Brown should’t push the Commission to enforce the Single Market laws that the Member States signed up to. Industry does it. NGOs do it. Governments (both EU and non-EU) do it. Even individual citizens do it.
Given that the Commission does have those powers, why should they not be subject to pressure from stakeholders on how to use them?
The reason the EC has the powers in the first lace is because of the Treaties. Bit I haven’t seen you object to the Treaties yet; only to the behaviour of Gordon B.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 am | Report this comment