Europe

Jim Pickard

The Czech constitutional court has cleared the Lisbon Treaty, as my colleague in Warsaw reports here.

Klaus – the last man standing between David Cameron and Lisbon’s ratification – could now sign the treaty within a month. Now it’s just a waiting game for Cameron to drop his promised referendum on Lisbon, a pledge which was always going to be difficult to maintain.

Jean Eaglesham writes here that: “David Cameron is poised to rule out a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty….an announcement would come ‘very soon’.”

The business secretary discusses whether Tony Blair has a realistic chance of getting the job.

David Cameron faces a horrible decision if the Lisbon treaty comes into force. A quick glance at the policy options makes it obvious why he doesn’t want to explain what he would do. Playing hardball runs the risk of wasting the first year (term?) of a Tory government in a fruitless European battle. The pragmatic route, however, will never satisfy his party. So what to do? Here’s a quick Q&A.

How can Cameron change the Lisbon treaty? Merely to start a formal renegotiation, Cameron would need to propose an Intergovernmental Conference and win the support of 14 countries – a simple majority of member states.

What, 14 countries? That seems like a lot. Yes. And negotiating Lisbon Mark-2 is about as appealing to other European leaders as watching test match cricket.

But many governments do want to repatriate powers, don’t they? Yes. But those demands were all raised during Lisbon talks. Remember, every change to a treaty clause requires unanimous consent. So you need 14 countries to start a negotiation and 27 countries to end it. It just takes one country to dig their heels in and it’s game over. Cameron could be making lots of trips to Riga, Sofia and Talin.

Umm…sounds hard. What could Cameron do to persuade them? He could call a referendum on Europe, either before or after trying to renegotiate the treaty. That would give him a mandate for talks – if the vote went the right way, on a question that was relevant.

But the rest of Europe could still block him. What then? Sabotage. Cameron could withhold Britain’s budget contribution, leave an empty chair at meetings or hold up the EU’s next treaty, which would be needed to accept Croatia or Iceland as members.

Hard ball! Would they listen? Once they stopped yelling? Possibly. But, at this stage, we’d be months into an unholy row. And every European diplomat would know that Cameron had invested a big chunk of his political capital into emerging victorious. They could offer him a face saving deal – but the ransom would be high.

Ouch. Is there an easier way? The pragmatic approach is for Cameron to threaten a referendum, while seeking some kind of concession that would allow him to declare victory.

What could that be? Well, he could ask for a “declaration of subsidiarity” on social policy for instance, which would make absolutely clear that any new rules would be primarily determined by Britain. Victory! The “declaration” would only be passed, of course, because it would have absolutely no legal force. No other countries would care. Peace in our time!

Wait a minute! That won’t meet the Tory manifesto commitment to opt-out of the social chapter? No. It would be purely symbolic. But be realistic. Restoring the social chapter opt-out is harder than it sounds. The chapter no longer exists; it is integrated into the Lisbon treaty. So Cameron would have to propose a fresh treaty negotiation, win the support of 14 countries to start, and then 27 countries to finish. So back to square one.

Jim Pickard

In retrospect I chose the wrong fortnight to be on holiday. But from my Cornish vantage point I couldn’t help wondering who had inadvertently come out of the expenses saga smelling of roses.

Firstly the central London MPs. They couldn’t claim the additional cost allowance so there was never any temptation – unlike those in outer London. Thus Harriet Harman sails through unscathed.

Secondly is none other than Lord Mandelson, the business secretary and one of the most powerful members of cabinet. Mandelson had the good fortune of spending the four years in question in Brussels and therefore has no embarrassing expenses by default. He emerges squeaky clean.

On the subject of Europe, my colleague Jean Eaglesham reports today that Labour MEPs will have to publish receipts for claims made under their office allowance. They will also have to publish their travel costs and the number of times they have claimed the E298 daily attendance allowance. The catch? This will only apply to future expense claims.

With the European elections fast approaching, eurosceptics will again be claiming that nothing good  comes out of Brussels. I’ve been leaked a document that conclusively proves them wrong. This proposed apple-pie-directive, which has been doing the diplomatic rounds, is quite special.

Some of it will mean nothing to those of you who are not immersed in the comfortingly odd habits of Brussels. But some of the insights are hilarious. My hat goes off to the Eurocrat who wrote it.

I particularly enjoyed these points:

  1. FR has entered a study reserve. It is reflecting on whether the effect of combining the two distinct elements in the Commission’s proposal could be to “mélanger les pommes et les poires”.

  1. Two delegations (EL, CY) also maintain a linguistic reserve. They insist that the Greek language version of the new Programme should refer to “Apple π”.

We eagerly await the motherhood directive.

A big moment: Downing Street have just released the seating plan for the G20 dinner. The protocol officials seem to have done a decent job because it is hard to pick the best place to sit. We’ve decided that Felipe Calderon of Mexico has a pretty good spot, with Russia and Brazil to his left and right, and China and France opposite (well, if Sarko turns up). We’re wondering what Gordon Brown will have to say to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Some other important details to report. Downing Street have confirmed that there will be a veggie option (possibly for the Indian premier?) There is no exchange of gifts as part of the bilateral but the heads of delegations will tomorrow receive a “selection of produce that highlights British talent”. The trip was worth it then.

It is not quite the “empty chair”, but Nicolas Sarkozy is making very clear that he is unhappy with Gordon Brown’s grand plan. Will the G20 meeting survive the Sarko huff?

The French president told French radio that the “projects” on the table “satisfy neither France or Germany”. He warned that he would “not associate” himself with “false compromises, not dealing with the problems that keep us busy”. His ultimatum is a more stringent crackdown on financial services.

This may be empty grandstanding, some low politics to push up his poll numbers, or an unflattering translation (I haven’t seen the French transcript). But Sarkozy is definitely revelling in being the troublemaker at the “unity” conference. All this from the leader that Brown appeared to be closest to in Europe. What happened to the “entente formidable”?

Here is an alternative translation of his comments from Reuters:

“I will not associate myself with a summit that would end with a communique made of false compromises that would not tackle the issues that concern us.”

“Regulation is at the heart of the debate that we are going to be holding during these hours,” he said.

“As of today, there is no firm agreement in place. The conversation is going forward, there are projects on the table. As things stand at the moment, these projects do not suit France or Germany.”

“The empty chair policy would mark a failure, which would be that of the summit.”

“I do not want to think that we will come to that. I had (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel on the telephone again late last night. We are on exactly the same wavelength. We have and we will carry a European view on values which are those of Europe.”

One more Tory MEP is throwing a hissy-fit over David Cameron’s decision to leave the European Peoples Party, the mainstream group in the European parliament.

This report quotes Caroline Jackson, who has been an MEP since 1984, as saying:

“Pulling out of the EPP was ridiculous, is a serious mistake and I am minded to leave the party”

She goes on:

“It was a ridiculous decision for another reason and that is that it will be very difficult for the Tories to form another group. The fact is that they will be left with the odds and sods of Eastern European political parties.”

Like her colleague Christopher Beazley, she is giving up her seat before the June European elections. Are there any more retiring MEPs out there who want to have sound off?

Jim Pickard

David Cameron has pleased the right wing of his party by pledging to pull out of the EPP, the alliance of centre-right parties in Europe. He believes that umbrella group is too wedded to greater European integration.

The move – announced earlier this month – has caused ructions among more pro-European MEPs, however. Few more so than Christopher Beazley, vice-chairman of the Conservative Group for Europe, who said at the time: ‘Who would we join with (instead)? Some sort of mish-mash of mavericks who have no power at home domestically?’

There was a rumour this evening that Beazley could be poised to make some kind of statement of intent tomorrow; timed, perhaps, for Gordon Brown’s visit to Strasbourg, when the British press will be paying more attention than usual to EU matters.

I got hold of Beazley’s secretary, who denied that he was about to quit the Tory whip. However, one well-placed Conservative source said he’d heard that Beazley was going to make some kind of pro-EPP statement, perhaps pledging solo allegiance to the grouping. We’ll see.

Given that Beazley is retiring in the June European elections, and the Tories aren’t quitting the EPP until then, that would be a rather eccentric gesture. Will update in due course.

UPDATE

Yes, it is as we thought: Beazley was on the Today programme this morning having a good moan about the Tory leadership.

There will be no discussions with Angela Merkel, with President Sarkozy, with all the other conservative leaders. Remember, with enlargement we have now got the Scandinavians, the Balts, the Poles, all of them – around the Baltic Sea every one has a conservative prime minister. None of them will be talking to David Cameron if he goes ahead and leaves.

“I am going to be joining the EPP as a full member as a demonstration that I think the Conservative position should be to stay.”

There is more:

“I cannot watch my country head for the rocks, which it will do if Cameron becomes Prime Minister and has no allies in the major governments of the European Union,” he declared.

“There is a Conservative pro-European argument and it has to be discussed, not smothered by anti-European hysteria in the party.”

The Foreign Office finances are dire. Its small budget has been hit hard by the collapse in sterling. The consequences are slowly beginning to emerge. As we reported today, Britain is set to withdraw the vast majority of the police seconded to EU reconstruction missions around the world. That will put the UK’s contribution to civilian operations in hotspots like Afghanistan, Georgia, Palestine on a par with Slovakia’s. So much for being a big player in Europe.

These kind of reconstruction and conflict prevention missions were a top UK priority. Gordon Brown even pledged last year to muster a 1,000 strong standing force of civilian volunteers. That now seems like a pipedream: the UK can no longer even afford its existing deployment of 100 police.

How did it come to this? One problem is how the FCO has managed its currency exposure.

Last year the Treasury removed the protection it gave the department against falls in the pound. (Very generous.) As a result, the FCO mandarins decided to hedge, telling MPs that “the ‘do nothing’ option is itself speculative and potentially high risk”.

But, for whatever reason, the FCO failed to cover itself beyond October 2009. So by the autumn, if the pound is still in the doldrums, the department will see its purchasing power slashed. You have to ask why it did not protect itself for longer — its budget, after all, is settled over a three year period. Other departments are facing pressure from the Treasury to cut costs and make savings. The FCO, somehow, seems to have put a squeeze on itself.

Was this a self-inflicted blow? I’m not sure. The Treasury may have stopped the FCO from hedging for more than a year. If this is true, the Treasury should cover the costs. But if this is a matter of the FCO being too timid, the mandarins will have some explaining to do. If the pound fails to recover by October, embassies around the world will see their expected budgets cut by up to a quarter.

The FCO board is now in a real pickle. Does it hedge to protect against the pound falling further in 2009/10? Or does it bet against the Euro and the Dollar by going into next year unprotected?

Gordon Brown used to boast that Britain was “better prepared” than other countries to ride out the economic storm. Britain’s diplomats now have to decide whether to bet their budget on whether the prime minister was right.

It lacks the punch of Sarko. But the French finance minister has clearly made her own bid for a Brit-bashing award. Christine Lagarde’s target for reproach is Alistair Darling, who apparently failed to warn her about Britain’s last rescue package, in spite of all his rhetoric about global co-ordination.

Unlike Darling, Tim Geithner had the manners to consult her before unvieling the US bailout, Lagarde says in an FT interview. She sounds exasperated at Darling’s failure to act on his own pleas for collaboration.

“Alistair says it himself. I say, ‘Yes, Alistair, get on with it. Just do it.’ ”

Has the rest of the world had enough of being led by Gordon and Alistair?

Jim Pickard

The UK was supposed to generate 15 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2020. That was the received wisdom. The prime minister himself has referred to it on several occasions*.

In fact British officials in Brussels have negotiated a slightly lower figure which equates to about 14.5 per cent.

This is because the EU-wide target – a more ambitious 20 per cent – will now include an element of aviation despite lobbying against this.

(Curiously, the UK sought to exclude planes with the argument that this would be un-environmental, ie “green” air fuel would come from biofuels, which destroy rainforest.)

In return the target is lower for islands which (in theory) must depend on aviation: the UK, Cyprus, Malta, Ireland and (don’t as me why) The Netherlands.

The difference may not look that big – I’m still trying to work out how many wind farms this equates to – but environmentalists say it is significant. That’s because the first 10 percentage points (or so) can be achieved from biomass and onshore wind farms. Getting beyond that requires difficult projects such as offshore wind and wave power.

A government source says that the tweaking of the targets don’t just apply to the UK so it would be wrong to portray this as a retreat.

Robin Webster, climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth, told me that the overall renewable energy deal was a “major leap forward amidst the back-tracking of the EU climate negotiations”.

But she went on….”It’s disappointing that Britain’s renewable energy target has been cut because we have such a large aviation sector. The government must deal with this rogue industry and take urgent steps to limit the threat it poses to our climate.”

* ”We need a massive expansion of renewables. Britain is fully committed to the EU target that 20 per cent of all energy must come from renewable sources by 2020. Last month Britain set out its strategy to meet our own 15 per cent renewable target – a £100 billion investment programme over the next twelve years.

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 politics and policy.

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

« AprMay 2012
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031