Wielding clout
I’m off to Luxembourg and what Jack Straw used to call the padded cell.
Today’s meeting of foreign ministers could flag up any last minute hitches or objections to the European which will be the main topic on the agenda at this week's summit. It takes place and will be the first time prime ministers and presidents of the other 26 EU states see Gordon Brown in action as boss.
But this regular foreign ministers' meeting is fascinating for another reason. Both critics and fans of the new treaty agree that one of its main aims is to extend the reach and clout of the European Union in the world. It will be easier for the EU to sign treaties, it will have a beefed up who will not be called foreign minister, but will combine the Javier Solana’s current role with that the That will give him much more cash and a staff of at least 5,000 in
But look I’m interested in whether you think it’s already too much, or too little. about relations with the following countries:
- • - a "step change" in EU involvement, involving more humanitarian aid and training
- • - possibility of a new statement backing UK demands for the extradition of Litvinenko’s suspected killer
- • - plans for tougher sanctions
- • - plans for sanctions against the gem and timber industry
- • - report on talks about the status of Kosovo
- • - increase in number of EU border police
- • - a new military force to guard refugee camps
The British government is particularly enthusiastic about the first four. It’s been urging more engagement in Iraq ever since the end of the war but it’s only become possible after a change of heart, and government, in France.
The Russians were furious about and have made it quite clear that this should be a matter between them and the UK alone. Mikhail Kamynin, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Britain should not seek to raise the issue further at EU level.
"Moreover, in London they should clearly realise that such provocative actions masterminded by the British authorities will not go without an answer, and cannot but entail the most serious consequences for Russian-British relations," he added.
So British diplomats think an EU statement hits harder than anything they can do on their own.
Doing the detailed work identifying new targets for sanctions in Burma and Iran is also British policy.
This, to me, is interesting. It is clear what some of the smaller countries get by being part of a in a grouping that includes France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the UK. But the British government also thinks that it exercises more clout in the world when acting as There’s little sign of the UK, at this meeting at least, being dragged down any road it doesn’t want to travel along.
But would this be better done by agreement among the bigger, more powerful countries? Does having Malta and Slovakia on board make any difference?
Clearly, many British people instinctively recoil at the idea of the EU expanding its foreign policy role, and feel it must be at the expense of Britain’s national interest.
But is it in fact those who are arguing for a re-think who would damage Britain national interest, in the name of sovereignty?
I’m Mark Mardell, the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
"NO TO AN EU FOREIGN MINISTER! YES TO A STRUCTURE TO 'VOLUNTARILY' COORDINATE MEMBER NATIONS' FOREIGN POLICIES!"
An EU structure to coordinate member nations' foreign policies- voluntarily- makes sense, and could be productive- provided:
1) ALL EU member nations have opt-out-able ability to any future foreign policy positions or actions that the EU may take; and
2) a condition of EU membership requires ALL member nations to be part of Nato; and
3) the EU , as a unit, militarily is subject to Nato approval and veto of any potential 'EU' military actions or endeavors in the world.
No EU member nation should be subject to having its resources 'high-jacked' by the EU- or by a powerful subgroup of its member nations- for foreign policy objectives/purposes/military actions that it/its citizens do not agree with.
UK 'RED LINES'
Efforts ought to be made to enable All of the UK's 'red lines' re the Constitution By Another Name, so called 'Reform Treaty', to be applicable to ALL member nations, if they desire!!
Without such, the ingredients for dis-unity, counter-productive cliques & acrimony will be ever present within the EU...
Too reduce the common appearance at EU conferences of the UK's representatives being too focused on narrow UK interests- rather than extrapolating and applying these to the other EU member nations- UK politicians and bureaucrats ought to be pursuing strategies re this.
Roderick V. Louis,
(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
rvlouis@patientempowermentsociety.com
Mark writes "There’s little sign of the UK, at this meeting at least, being dragged down any road it doesn’t want to travel along."
I'm sorry, Mark, to rip the veils from your Europhiliac illusions, but there are many obvious signs that the UK is frequently dragged down roads it doesn't even want to see, let alone travel along. Take, for example, Portugal's planned fêting of Robert Mugabe. Despite Gordon's protests, despite his threats of a boycott, Portugal has stated it will allow this genocidal dictator to strut around, in defiance of "EU" sanctions prohibiting his visit.
In fact, this, like most evidence, suggests that contrary to Mark Mardell's unsubstantiated assertions, the UK has gained zero influence in, or from, the EU. Not that observable facts will change Marc Mardell's unjustified optimism that the EU is the cure for all our ills.
For Britain, it all comes down to what you perceive it's role in the world to be. I would be inclined to think those considering it still a great power in the world by itself to be disillusioned. Thus I feel the UK can only benefit from grouping with the EU. EU foreign policy adds up to more than the sum of the foreign policies of member states.
BUT, it can only do so be acting as a united front which seems to be the issue in this multispeed/-level Europe.
About the EU statement concerning the Litvinenko case; It seems to me that the EU statement was necessary because the normal processes have not helped. This is about being pro-active rather than provocative.The safety and security of citizens wherever they are in the world needs to be put first. The Russians might be able to help us all find a way to sort such situations out by looking at it all from a much bigger perspective. In this way lets hope the EU statement makes it easier for the Russians to work perhaps in new ways to get the situation sorted out.
In the end, Mark, the point is not really what powers the EU does or does not have but what powers you and I have over the EU.
In Europe laws are initiated by the Commission. Which member of the Commission did you vote for - or can you vote out again? None of course, as these are appointed posts not elected posts.
MEPs (remote enough though they are for most people, at least we 'could' have elected them) sitting in the European Parliament can amend laws but not initiate them.
The UK Parliament - which is as far as most peoples' democratic writ extends - has no power to amend laws made in Europe. Therein lays the problem.
I don't really mind where the guy working for me sits as long as he knows he's working for me - and knows I can sack him if he stops doing so. The real issue in Europe is the absence of basic democracy / accountability at the level where decisions are made.
Without that 'any' power is too much.
we are a small country and as other small countries our assets lie in our many skills, heritage and democracy.We have really special diplomats and our beloved Queen.
It would seem nobody tells us how much status we would lose without our monarch.wouldn't our politicians be less well thought of too?
Our main anxiety could be if we pitch all our assets into Europe we will have nothing to pass onto the next generation.Our money will drain away, for example your quoted 5,000 staff for proto-embassies and so on it all seems to costly by far.
Well, well, isn't the British government hell-bent on opting out from police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters?
Regards
Ralf Grahn
It's pretty obvious that the UK gains from EU membership, and not just for business.
In any dealings with an enormous power such as Russia or the US, a small country like the UK can only exert so much pressure. Acting collectively means that we have the weight of an enormous economic power. Big enough to make even Russia respond angrily when the EU's Litvinenko statement was made. That alone says everything you need to know.
I think that before demanding anything from Russia Britain should come clean about its own role in Litvinenko case. From the very beginning British version of Putin involvement seemed to me extremely fishy. I do not see why Putin should order to kill someone so insignificant. I worked in Russia for several years and I know that Mr. Litvinenko was considered no more than a clown there. The way he got British citizenship shows that probably he had ties with British intelligence. But as an agent he was completely useless and even embarrassing. So knowing all these facts made up your mind who murdered Mr. Litvinenko.
Why do there seem to be no politicians worth a damn who can talk about the EU as you have? I have previously loved living on the continent. I am by no means xenophobic, but I once patrolled the Berlin Wall and hated Communism, and I harbour a great concern that everything about the EU seems to be working against our love of liberty and independence just like some newer, better educated form of communism. Suddenly however, an ardent europhobe like me can read your blog and understand that the EU may hold out some practical advantage to the UK after all. I shall be keeping a keen interest in your future comments - well done!
A key issue will be whether the EU will be able to take foreign policy positions that are incompatible with those of the USA. The same European countries more or less are members of NATO. The division of NATO through EU doing its own thing could have unfortunate consequences, not least for these institutions themselves.
A further test will be if and when France or the UK, say, is obliged to go along with a majority voted EU position that is not in line with either country's traditional foreign policy view of its national interests. But I cannot see the new high representative proposing such a thing (assuming the new Treaty gives him or her the sole right to make proposals) nor the other countries ganging up against any one of the EU's members. What ever happened to the "Luxembourg compromise"?
The Russian reaction to the UK elevating the Litvinenko affair to EU prominence demonstrates the effectiveness of this strategy. Russia would obviously rather deal with isolated states from a relative position of strength. If the EU states can successfully implement unified Foreign Policy, effectively reinforcing their current negotiating position, then it is good for all sides.
In the short term the EU needs to concentrate on building a track record of unified decision making, sticking to agreements and taking requisite action. Once this track record is in place, all parties (eg Russia) will be clear on the limits (the house rules) of future negotiations.
I suppose back in the days of the empire, Britain could support itself entirely. Those days are clearly long past. As the minor partner in an unequal relationship with the US (climate change, anyone?) the only way I see the UK will have a real voice is if it joins whole-heartedly with the rest of Europe in promoting common foreign policies. As part of the EU voice, we have a bigger voice in a changing world. Co-operation requires a bit of "give" as well as "take" of course; this seems to be forgotten too often. The overall effect in the end though is to strengthen our position. Of course if Malta joins the UK in voicing an opinion, it doesn't make much difference, but as a concerted effort by the EU (including smaller countries like Malta), it will cause others to stop and listen.
So they will not discuss and decide a progressive talk and compreensive approach with Iran?
Furthering harhser sanctions is retreating, isn't it?
So, the EU is really interesting when it furthers UK interests but London opts out when it those interests are not served. Why should the other membefr states show solidarity to Britain when THEIR narrowly consideered interests are not served ? Maybe Gordon Brown should remembee Ben Franklin's warning "Gentlemen, we must hang togeher or we shall be hanged separately"
A strong EU with a sound foreign policy has to be a good balance to the way the USA/Russia and China try to manage foreign affairs.
There is more chance of hostile nations listening to the EU than the UK on its own.
We also get the double whammy of having a good relationship with the USA but also being a strong partner in the biggest economy on the planet.
Mr Mardell
You make the error of assuming that an integrating Europe is the only way to proceed. There is an alternative view that the countries should co-operate on a policy-by-policy basis rather than building "national" institutions. Either by accident or design you follow and continue to trot out the line that "there is no alternative" which is espoused particularly by Peter Mandelson.
There is, in fact, at least one sensible alternative. Let's have some balance please rather than this "you're either with Europe or against it" line.
"Russia - POSSIBILITY of a new STATEMENT backing UK demands for the extradition of Litvinenko’s suspected killer.
• Iran - PLANS for tougher sanctions"
Talk is cheap and successive statements even cheaper.
[Vox, vox and praetera nihil]
But the funniest thing is "plans for sanctions against the gem and timber industry" in Burma, where French oil and gas concern (Total)is as big a player as its Chinese equivalents.
Now, that's a real gem.
'it will have a beefed up high representative, who will not be called foreign minister, but will combine the Javier Solana’s current role with that the external affairs commissioner.'
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet"
In this case the smell is of corruption and deception.
Mark, you ask: "But is it in fact those who are arguing for a re-think who would damage Britain national interest, in the name of sovereignty?"
Benjamin Franklin's famous saying "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" could be usefully adaped to:
'They who would give up essential sovereignty to achieve temporary interests, deserve neither sovereignty or [the attainment of those] interests'.
The UK would be better served getting the security council behind them. It already wields an enormous stick with its position on the UN security council and its close relationship with the US. Using the EU is dumbing down the relationship. Bringing the clout down the UK has nothing to gain from a unified european foreign policy unless it is completely run by the UK which by the very nature of the EU it can't be.
A couple of examples of where the EU has excercised its malign influence:
1.Iran - endless talk which only resulted in Iran doing what it wanted to do in the first place
2.Africa - the utter destruction of the livelyhood of hundreds of thousands of farmers and fishermen only to protect France from competition
3.Yugoslavia - promising support to the federal government to keep Yugoslavia together (which emboldened Belgrade to use force to achieve this) days AFTER Slovenia and Croatia had already seceded
4.Europe - endangering the safety of citizens concerning products made in China. Every product recalled in the last few months carried the EU's CE-marking. China seems to be exempt from the stringent rules
5.Europe - slowly hollowing out national institutions such as parliament, government and judicial systems. This resulted in a de facto elimination of national sovereignty and parliamentary democracy
6.Europe - persecution of those who dare criticize the 'project' or dare expose corruption. Martha Andresen, Hans Tillack and Paul van Buitenen can tell you all about that. The corruption (particularly under MEPs from the Club Med countries) is endemic
This is a record I am sure EU-philes are proud of.
Rather than get involved in a sterile debate about whether those things in which the EU get involved, or whether the policy is right, my question would be how much control the voters have if they want to change it ??
If the EU veers to a vast right-wing neo-con cabal [or indeed a hard-left communist dictatorship] how do we, the plebeians, change the policies to bring it back under democratic control.
I , for one, have no idea how we could, or would, achieve such a thing. Where are the decisions on foreign policy taken anyway ? And will they not just end up being a European version of the American aspiration for 'total spectrum domination' to make things easier for multi-national corporations ?
Cynosarges,
if the UK has no influence, why did the EU even issue a statement on Litvinenko?
If Mugabe attends the conference, Brown won't go - it's as simple as that. The UK is not being dragged anywhere...
I think that idea of EU solidarity is deeply flawed. Take Litvinenko case. Britain wants and gets EU support in its row with Russia. But British position in this case does not withstand any serious scrutiny. British intelligence had both motive (Litvinenko with his incongruous statements became a burden and his death could have been used against Putin) and opportunity (the murder happened in London) to eliminate Mr. Litvinenko. Britain flatly rejects any idea of trying the suspect in the third country but surely in the UK taking into account British intelligence involvement we can get only kangaroo court.
@Martin (5)
You left out how that every position in the EU -save the MEPs, which are elected directly- is decided via negotiations between the memberstates and their politicians. All of which, incidentally, have been elected democratically.
To Max Sceptic,
Following your reasoning, the Scots desrved neither sovereignty nor the protection of their interests when hey signed the Union Act in 1700 and something.
It's rather amazing to see people shouting about sovereignty when your nuclear missles' software is controlled by another country's navy (meaning you can't fire them independently) and that "special relationship" looks more like a leash (that which connects the poodle to his master)
@Bedd Gelert (22): you ask the right question.
US voters can change course with a new executive every 4 years. They can replace the entire house of representives every 2 years and a third of the senate every 2 years. They can replace their governors every 2-4 years. The US congress (parliament) holds full control over both the purse of the country and legislative initiative.
In the EU however, the elites have taken good care of themselves.
The elites replace the commission every 5 years from members of their own elite.
The European 'toy' parliament may be elected every 5 years, but is more like a talking shop than a parliament. It doesn't control the budget, it cannot initiate legislation and only in limited cases can it change them.
The US system was for the people, by the people.
The EU system is for the political elite, by the political elite. Vote them out you cannot.
Most people who support the EU fall into 2 categories:
1) university educated wannabe civil servants/EU politicians who think 'they know better than the people' and thumb their noses down at democracy. They fancy themselves some kind of neo-aristocracy.
2) naive people who don't know the EU's true history and purpose and who can be fooled easily with empty platitudes such as 'ever closer union'.
Two comments. First, if the brits stopped whingeing from the sidelines and got into fuller participation, they woud have more influence.
Second, if the UK and other governments kept their electorates more informed about just what is going on in the EU in their name (rather than ignoring, filtering or even blocking information) then the public might be more stimulated to pressurise their governments to make the EU more democratic. Instead we readers of this blog have to rely on Mark Mardell to keep us in touch with just some of the things going on.
Part of giving the EU more power ought to be making it more democratic (but proposals which would do that have been opposed by eurosceptics because it takes away from "national sovereignty"). That being said, in the modern unipolar world, the US can basically bully nations to get what it wants. A united EU foreign policy would form a conter-balance to the US and could potentially moderate its excesses. Then the world would have a bi-polar system, without the same danger of war and destruction that charaterized the Cold War. Trying to get Europe to have a coherent foreign policy without some institution for that purpose is a lost cause. Just look at the war in Iraq or even during the Cold War and how the nations of Europe with a major outside threat still had competeing and often contradictory (with each other) foreign policy. To have a strong, coherent foreign policy the expansion of EU foreign policy powers are needed. As Ben Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or we most assurdely will hang separately."
European citizens have as much influence over European policy as they do over national policy. All European directives are implemented with considerable input from representations from the member states. Democratically elected governments apoint these representatives. Our influence over the implementation of local laws and policies is no more nor no less.
The new Treaty will not give the EU more power but it is intended to allow the EU institutions to better do what it they have been mandated to do
Belgian resident
Marcel, #21
a bit of balance please....
Why don't you include Iraq in your list and elobarate on what happens if individual states play their own wargames. Do you suggest that the same should happen in Iran? I for one believe that talking is good in this case. The safety problems with 'made in China' are bigger in the US than in the EU, and where would we be if every country would have to regulate this on their own. I do agree with you on your point about Africa.
This will be a prominant forum for the newer EU members to present ideas and make recommendations for a change in the way things have always been done.
A maverick state such as Poland can now broaden the minds of the so-called leaders of the EU with ideas on how to handle Russia and promote a genuine human rights adgenda.
@Martin (5)
Fine, let's have an elected Commission.
But do you really think that the British will accept a Commission that, for example, has no British member?
The current Commission President was choice no. 3 because a certain Tony Blair didn't like the first two candidates. Is that the British understanding of democarcy? For me, this smells of apartheid as the 90% non-British Europeans just don't seem to count.
The worst delusion is self delusion. When you believe your own scam, you act irrationally instead of in your best self interest. Two dozen plus Lilliputians are still Lilliputians. There was an IBM commercial on American TV which showed a school of small fish being pursued by a larger one. They organized themselves into what appeared to be a single large fish and the pursuer turned tail and swam away as the pursued. In the real world such an illusion doesn't usually work at all, certainly not for very long. The EU is still and always will be a bunch of relatively small nations. It may have been inevitable but two devastating world wars sped the process up considerably. The power and glory of past imperial empires which stole its wealth from the rest of the world is long gone. These countries are legends only in their own minds.
The reality makes the illusion look laughable, even pathetic from my perspective.
The EU wants to talk to the Russian government about the suspected murderer of Litvinenko (Lukovoy?) A few turns of the gas line spigots this coming winter and the subject will suddenly change to whether or not Europe will freeze to death as its economies are crushed. What can it do about it? Answer; Nothing.
The EU wants to send more humanitarian aid in a "step change" to Iraq? Fine, who will pay? Which of the squabbling countries perpetually arguing over who has to give money to fund the EU and who gets money from the EU and how much will make the sacrifice? Who will contribute a sufficient portion of their own wealth to make this sacrifice meaningful? Answer; Nobody!
The EU wants to make plans for tougher sanctions against Iran? Where has it been for the last few years? Jawboning uselessly. Can the EU affect Iran's insane messianic program to build nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map, create a world without America, and blackmail everyone else into adopting a worldwide Shia Caliphate? What can it do to stop Israel or America from a pre-emptive military strike destroying Iran's ability to carry out this insanity? Answer; Nothing!
The EU wants to impose sanctions on Burma's gem and timber industry? If it has any effect at all, who will it hurt, the generals or the average people? Where has it been up to now and what can it do about Burma's real industrial exports which keep it viable, its oil and gas exports to China and Thailand? Answer; Nothing!
The EU wants to talk about Kosovo and Serbia? What happened the last time it wanted to do that? It was so impotent it had to beg the US to come a quarter of the way around the world to prevent re-ignition of World War I, no UN Security Council resolution needed then (Russia would have vetoed it.) So what can it do about Kosovo now? Answer; Nothing!
The EU wants to increase the number of border police in Gaza. They'd better be tall enough to catch the rockets the Palestinians launch at Israeli towns and wide enough to stop Israeli tanks and bulldozers from going into Gaza to retaliate. Strong too so that they won't be crushed when the tanks ride right over them when they try to block the way. What can the EU do about the Israeli Palestinian conflict? Answer; Nothing!
The EU wants to send a military force to guard the refugees in Tchad? I think Holland has a few soldiers left over who stood around doing nothing in Srebrenicia when the Serbs massacred the Bosnians, they can just as easily stand around doing nothing in Tchad when those refugees are massacred by rebels or one government or another too. What about Jacques Chirac’s vaunted rapid reaction force? Probably at an extended lunch eating cheese and drinking wine. Union rules undoubtedly. Just about what their EU representatives are also doing most of the time. The only difference…the EU reps get much better cheese and wine. For them, money is no object. Let’s face it, the EU is as useless as teats on a bull.
Martin - comment #5 wrote:
"I don't really mind where the guy working for me sits as long as [s]he knows [s]he's working for me - and knows I can sack him [her] if [s]he stops doing so. The real issue in Europe is the absence of basic democracy / accountability at the level where decisions are made."
My additions in [brackets]
This simple statement goes to the heart of the debate about European governance and the scope/nature of its impact upon the lives of European citizens.
It also begs the question of how such accountability/democratization might be introduced into the EU's institutional architecture?
Unfortunately the answer raises as many questions as it answers because such fundamental reform would inevitably require Europeanisation of the political arena, the creation of true pan-European political parties, elections contested on specifically European platforms, parties addressing matters of exclusive European resonance and organising themselves into an effective European polity.
It also implicity signals an incremental and irrevocable diminution of the power and influence currently wielded by member states, as symbolised by the hegemonic role exercised by the Council of Ministers/European Council.
Ultimately this means the creation of a true executive function, drawn from the ranks of a politicised legislature (European Parliament?), acting in the manner most people would recognise as a de facto European government.
I have no problem whatsoever with the above scenario; it is an entirely logical outcome of an evolutionary political/democratic process, which of course might take many years to come to fruition.
However, I think there might be some disquiet amongst more traditional elements of public opinion at the prospect of such outcomes.
So Martin, I assume you concur with the above strategy for delivering the democratic accountability you crave, and its ramifications for our long-term future?
"Iran - PLANS for tougher sanctions"
"Iran - endless talk which only resulted in Iran doing what it wanted to do in the first place" [#21]
Don't lose hope!
I'm sure that EU will finally impose tougher sanctions now in light of reports from Moscow that
Iranian fanatics have been planning to assasinate pres. Putin during his imminent visit in the Islamic Republic.
Attempts of ayatollahs to create a nuclear arsenal can be tolerated by Brussels, but THAT outrage? Never!
In 1898 Bismarck was asked what the decisive factor in modern history is. His answer was "That North America speaks English". The world was bigger than Europe even then. Our foreign policy should be decided on an issue-by-issue basis taking our values and interests into account. Due to shared language, history and cultural values shaped in these islands we see time and time again that it is the English-speaking countries that naturally react as one on major foreign policy issues while Continental countries are motivated by different calculations.
How will the changes we can expect in the 21st century influence British foreign policy? Advances in technology mean that geography is becoming less and less important. The population of the Continent is falling, with that of Germany and Italy each predicted to fall by 8% by 2050. The population of all the Anglosphere countries is rising with the USA up from 140 million in 1945 to 300 million now and projected to rise to 400 million in 2050 and 500 million by 2100. The combined population of the six main English-speaking countries will be twice that of the EU26 by the end of the century. The UK has excellent relations with a democratic India that uses English as an official language. Therefore while the primacy of the relationship between Britain and the English-speaking countries was the right choice throughout the 20th century all demographic and economic trends indicate it will be an even wiser choice in the 21st century.
Let's face it,what we have is a collection of discarded politicians called Commissioners and a collection of mere opportunists who are supposed to be our representatives.
And the debate sounds like one of those recurring resurgent Lib-Dem seminars or a debate down at your local Poly now called University.
Instead of talking about why Europe's GNP growth is one third of Russia's, one fourth of India's and one fifth of China's, or how to stop the Islamic invasion of Europe (Is it true that we had Human Rights legislation to facilitate this invasion?) or whether to adopt the Baltic States Nationality Acts with the ethnicity of the population in 1940 as their reference point we talk of annoying silly things.
There is talk of creating a second Albania out of Serbia's Holy Land. Actually the Albanians want to carve a third Moslem Albania out of Macedonia. Guess what will happen in South Ossettia, Dniestr, Abkhazia, Catalonia, Northern Italy , Cyprus, Turkey (one third Kurds), Iran (one third Azeris, not to mention Ukraine and even Britain.
The bit about Russia was even more hillarious. The aim seems to be "to make Russia angry" often referred to as "Putin's Russia" (Bush's America? Brown's Britain? Livingstone's Londonstan?) The young man who is Britain's Foreign Secretary wants to make his mark. Make Putin angry, the only leader in Europe who is genuinely loved and admired by his people. Why not say top up Azeri oil with 80% water and stop importing Russian oil and gas. And stop exporting chocolate, breakfast cereals, designer stuff, British hip hop, luxury cars.
These political pygmies do not seem to know anything about anything. If they want to know about Islam they only need to speak with the original peoples of the Middle East ie the Chaldeans and Assyrian Christians in Iraq, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Copts in Egypt. It is easy to see where Russia's resources could end up - in SCO the Nato of the East . With Russia, China and the whole of Central Asia as members, with India, Pakistan, Iran as observes and asking for membership, with the US asking for observer status and refused, Japan knocking at the door etc, the organisation has more than enough nukes, industry, population, technology etc. With Russia's energy and renewed growth in armaments it would have everything going for it. Whilst we would be stuck with sub-prime securities, swishing Russian,Oriental and Arab oligarchic money around, contemplating celebs, models and footballers and exporting British American pop and hip hop.
Thank you, John, for such a brilliant post. Even by your usual high standards it was exceptional.
It perfectly encapsulates why the posts from some of our continental friends are so vituperatively anti-British, since they do not wish to acknowledge the overriding demographic and cultural realities which you point out.
The first victim is the language: the supporters of EU hegemony would like to classify us all into Europhobes vs Europhiles when the actual division is between EU-phobes and EU-philes, whereas many of the EU-phobes are Europhiles and vice versa.
A weak man needs hyperbolic language to support him but a strong man needs nothing but the force of his own example.
John, the difference between the 20th and 21st century is that English has become a universal language, therefore hanging on to the club of countries where English is the official language doesn't make sense. Most educated people in most countries are sufficiently fluent in English to operate effectively in a global economy.