Category: Europe

Kiran Stacey

As Westminster waits for the publication of Sir Gus O’Donnell’s report into whether Liam Fox broke the ministerial code as a result of his friendship with Adam Werritty, Number 10 is drip-feeding new revelations into the public domain.

The latest is that Werritty met other defence ministers: specifically Gerald Howarth and Lord Astor. We don’t know when, where or how often though.

The other piece of news is that Werritty did not have any meetings in the Foreign Office or Number 10. What about other departments? Apparently the government hasn’t checked that.

Yet again, the new information only begs more questions.

Why was he meeting these ministers? How often did he see them? What did they discuss? Has he been into other departments?

The prime minister suggested last Wednesday he might publish a full list of Werritty’s meetings with all ministers. It looks like this suggestion has been allowed to wither on the vine.

We will simply have to hope that Sir Gus’s report when it is released later today tackles these issues once and for all.

UPDATE - Whatever the report says (and we will bring it to you soon after it is published at 2pm), we won’t have the benefit of getting a proper debate on it.

Speaker John Bercow has just refused an urgent question from Ed Miliband on the subject, which is strange given Bercow has been so good at allowing parliamentary time for the big issue of the day.

Kiran Stacey

Hank Paulson had his bazooka plan, now David Cameron has gone one step further, calling for a “big bazooka” approach to tackling the eurozone crisis.

Cameron calls for five things:

  1. Recapitalisation of eurozone banks
  2. More money for the eurozone bailout fund
  3. Greece’s economic future to be clarified
  4. The IMF to pressurise countries to do more to tackle the crisis
  5. The deepening of the single market and improved eurozone governance

Kiran Stacey

William HagueLast night the government lost a crucial amendment to their Europe bill in the Lords by a handful of votes.

Peers voted to introduce a “sunset clause” on the entire bill (actually, the entire bill apart from one technical point), which would limit it to only five years. Importantly, this means that the so-called “referendum lock” – whereby any transfer of sovereignty from London to Brussels could only be allowed after a Yes vote in a referendum – would have to be voted on again in five years’ time.

The “referendum lock” is key to Cameron’s attempts to win back the support of Eurosceptic MPs who believe he let his party down by allowing the Lisbon Treaty to be written into law without a referendum.

The Foreign Office is therefore livid at what peers have done, regarding this as a “wrecking amendment” designed to spoil the whole bill. But William Hague (mojo back and intact) is intent on getting it through with the referendum lock in its original form.

An FCO source tells me the foreign secretary intends to face down peers, and they reckon that the government could get the numbers to stack up in the Lords next time, having only lost the amendement vote by a handful of votes. “It could have been worse”, my source says. Let’s see whether peers will be as pliant as the FCO hopes…

Jo Johnson

How does the world look from Westminster? Foreign policy is woefully under-scrutinised in the UK, where governments can wage war and sign treaties without reference to parliament, and the limited attention it does receive could arguably be better directed.  One way to assess the prism through which MPs view the world is to analyse the slot for foreign office questions, which comes around only once every five sitting weeks and lasts about an hour. To judge from the map generated by the questions that MPs have managed to put to Foreign and Commonwealth Office ministers since the general election, their concerns bear curiously little relation to the way the world is moving.

Jo Johnson

As it’s prediction season, here goes… My crystal ball, for what it is worth, foretells political and economic union between France and Germany, perhaps within the next 12-24 months. Europe needs a gamechanger, one that creates an insurmountable firebreak against the speculators. Crises have historically been the motor of European integration and a full union, much like the panicky one Britain offered France in June 1940, might look tempting. It would provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies, finally fulfilling the founding fathers’ dream of “ever closer union”.

Here is a fine example of the dangers of politicians writing seemingly innocuous op-eds for newspapers.

Ahead of a trip to Dublin in 2006, George Osborne used an article in The Times to pay homage to the Irish boom. The opening paragraph about Ireland’s “shining example” to economic policymakers is a classic:

A generation ago, the very idea that a British politician would go to Ireland to see how to run an economy would have been laughable. The Irish Republic was seen as Britain’s poor and troubled country cousin, a rural backwater on the edge of Europe. Today things are different. Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking, and that is why I am in Dublin: to listen and to learn.

The conclusion is almost as cringeworthy:

The new global economy poses real long-term challenges to Britain, but also real opportunities for us to prosper and succeed.  In Ireland they understand this.

They have freed their markets, developed the skills of their workforce, encouraged enterprise and innovation and created a dynamic economy. They have much to teach us, if only we are willing to learn.

To be fair to Osborne, many of his arguments are still valid even after the crash.

A well educated workforce, top notch R&D investment, and competitive tax rates to encourage investment are all as important now as they were during the boom years.

But there is not a word of caution about potential imbalanaces in the economy. No mention of the racy property market, reckless lending, or his views on the dangers to Ireland from having joined the Euro.

The clash over next year’s EU budget has widely been viewed as a contest between the austere and the profligate. The end result, after a final round of negotiations collapsed in the wee hours of the night, is that the forces of austerity, led by UK prime minister David Cameron and his Dutch and Danish allies, prevailed over a spendthrift European parliament.

But there is another – often overlooked – element to the debate that animated the member states’ unexpectedly stubborn stance: a desire to punish a Parliament that has grown increasingly assertive – some say grasping – since the Lisbon treaty came into force in December.

It is hard to imagine David Cameron delivering a more flattering speech in Ankara. His paean to Turkey’s place in Europe even included a smattering of Turkish phrases, which will have greatly impressed my Turkish grandmother watching at home. (It was a decent try, if lacking a bit of practice.)

On the political front, he tackled all the increasing number of areas where Britain is at odds with Turkey as gently as possible. He even included the extraordinary line that Turkey was the European country with “the greatest chance of persuading Iran to change course on nuclear policy”. Given they voted against toughening up UN sanctions on Iran earlier this month – which is Britain’s attempt to at persuasion – that is quite a claim.

Even so, the lovebombing will only go so far in Ankara.

Nick Clegg has an uncanny knack of finding agonising dilemmas to solve.

Before Sunday’s World Cup final, he will have to chose between upsetting his mother or his wife.

His formidable wife Miriam González Durántez and the Clegg boys will be backing Spain all the way.

But Clegg of course speaks Dutch, the native tongue of his mother Hermance van den Wall Bake.

Been out of the office this morning, so afraid I’m coming a bit late to the OBR report. But one conclusion that leaps out is on immigration. Sir Alan Budd finds that:

1) A fall in immigration will hit Britain’s long-term economic potential and

2) Cameron will still fail to meet his promise to lower net migration to 1990s levels

First the point on the economy. Sir Alan Budd’s report cuts the forecast for “trend growth” from 2.75 per cent to 2 per cent from 2014 onwards, primarily because Britain’s workforce won’t be growing fast enough to sustain it.

The implication is to maintain a 2.75 per cent long term growth, either the British birth rate needs to rise significantly (it’s predicted to fall) or immigration levels need to run at the same pace as when Britain opened its doors to Poland.

It’s an economic challenge that runs against the grain of the political debate these days. Most folk in Westminster are only happy to talk about restricting the borders, rather attracting more foreign workers.

As the OBR points out, the flagging economy and the competition from Germany (which opens its borders to Poland and other A8 countries in 2011) will make Britain much less attractive destination for migrants.

But even with this headwind, it concludes that David Cameron will break his promise to “reduce net migration to tens of thousands not hundreds of thousands”, as billed in the Queen’s speech.

The OBR estimates that net migration will run at 140,000 a year — about 40,000 higher than Cameron’s own immigration pledge. It is only a working assumption. But it is hardly a vote of confidence in Cameron’s ability to deliver his programme for government.

Also makes you wonder what the additional hit to trend growth would be if Cameron did manage to bring net migration down to under 100,000.

UPDATE: I’ve been corrected. The OBR assumes, on most issues, that the previous government’s policies will continue. So the report is in fact stating that Cameron’s immigration policy needs to reduce immigration from a trend rate of 140,000. That, of course, means that the OBR’s long term growth assumptions are also on the optimistic side. Cameron’s immigration cap, if successful, will hold-back economic growth.

From Gideon Rachman’s blog

By Gideon Rachman

If the answer is Herman Van Rompuy and Cathy Ashton, what the hell was the question? Europe’s choices for its new “president” and “foreign minister” are like the result of some sort of computer-dating programme that has gone badly wrong. If you fed in all the criteria for the jobs into your computer and it spat out the names – “Van Rompuy” and “Ashton”, you would ring the systems department and tell them that there had been some sort of catastrophic breakdown.

Lady Ashton is not the best candidate in Europe for the job – she is not even close to the best candidate in Britain. If the EU leaders were determined to have a Brit there were plenty of other much better qualified people: Chris Patten, Mark Malloch Brown, Paddy Ashdown, Peter Mandelson, Geoff Hoon, Chris Huhne, Kenny Dalglish. It might be objected that none of these men are women. But that need not be an inusperable problem.

David Cameron will tomorrow raise the bugle to his lips and sound the retreat on the Lisbon treaty referendum. But he’ll tell his troops that they will fight another day as he pledges to repatriate powers. One thing to look out for is when he plans to trigger a formal re-negotiation and how. We’ve had a Cameron U-turn on the referendum — watch out for a  Zagreb zigzag on repatriation.

Some European diplomats think that Cameron is a pragmatic chap who has realised he cannot spend his first six months trying to reopen Lisbon. It would overshadow his fledgling government and could waste precious political capital, particularly if other European leaders ignore his pleas. (Remember that 14 member states need to support Cameron to even start renegotiation talks, while any changes require unanimity.)

Westminster blog

on the UK political scene

About this blog Blog guide
Jim Pickard and Kiran Stacey, FT Westminster correspondents, share the latest news and analysis on the UK's political scene.

Follow the latest news on the UK coalition government.

To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

Contact the Westminster blog team: Jim Pickard, Kiran Stacey, Nicholas Timmins, Elizabeth Rigby and Helen Warrell.

The illustrations of Jim and Kiran are by Nick Hardcastle.

See the full list of FT blogs.

The authors

Jim Pickard joined the lobby team in January 2008. He has been at the Financial Times since 1999 as a regional correspondent, assistant UK news editor and property correspondent.

Kiran Stacey is an FT political correspondent, having joined the lobby in 2011. He started at the FT as a graduate trainee in 2008, working on desks including UK companies and US equity markets before taking over the FT's Energy Source blog.

Contributors

Elizabeth Rigby, the FT's chief political correspondent, joined the lobby team in September 2010. Elizabeth has worked at the FT for more than a decade and was most recently its consumer industries editor.

Helen Warrell is the FT's UK reporter, covering home affairs, crime and policing. She joined the FT in 2008 and has spent time as a reporter in the Brussels bureau and more recently, editing the paper's Asia coverage on the world news desk.

Archive

« JanFebruary 2012
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829