Keep her for entertainment, say I

I have been told by one of the less entertaining readers of this blog that I have out-Thornberried Ms Emily Thornberry of whom I had actually heard even before the low-grade scandal she was involved in that made her name so well known. Not many other people had. As insults go it is not much. I have had far better ones in my life but I do think a short paragraph about the former Shadow Attorney-General is a good way of starting a posting about entertainment in politics.

The whole Thornberry saga showed her stupidity, the ease with which her Leader could be thrown into panic and the general dullness and, as I said above, low grade of politics in this country. That, as it happens, is a good thing. Dull politics enlivened by the odd bout of entertainment is an excellent system to live under. A good many countries are envious of that, their politics being considerably more exciting and frightening. I do not wish to change things, not even to satisfy the People's Will.

All the same, entertainment is needed from time to time and the departure of Cherie Blair from the public scene has taken a good deal of it away. That is why we are so grateful to Ms Thornberry for brightening our days (just a few of them, to be sure, but it is better than nothing) as the new recruits to the People's Army are not likely to do that.

There is, however, another female politician who provides some entertainment (not on the Cherie scale but that was a superlative effort). I speak, of course, of the egregious Cathy Ashton or Baroness Ashton as she is better known, former High Panjandrum of the EU's Common Foreign Policy and before that many things, particularly Treasurer of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament though, apparently, she had no idea but none at all, where some of the funds came from.

As this blog mentioned before, la Ashton may have been superseded as the High Panjandrum but was staying on to "complete" the negotiations with Iran. Readers of this blog will not be surprised to hear that although, according to Secretary of State Kerry the negotiations have gone on very well, the deadline has again been pushed forward to next July.

The EU is now wondering what to do with la Ashton. Do we keep her till then, assuming that the deadline will undoubtedly have to be extended again?

For her part, Ashton - the EU’s former foreign policy chief, who has chaired the nuclear talks for the past 12 months - on Monday read out a joint EU-Iran statement and left the press room without taking questions.

She stepped down from her EU post on 1 November, but was kept in the nuclear talks until Monday’s initial deadline.

Her new boss, Italy’s Federica Mogherini, told press in Strasbourg the same day that she is consulting with the US and Germany on whether to keep Ashton in place until July.

“That’s for me to consider”, Mogherini noted. “It will be decided in the coming days”.

She added there is “a little bit of disappointment, we were all hoping for an agreement tonight [but there is] … also a little bit of hope”.

"It's important that negotiations will continue”.

Federica Mogherini is the new High Panjandrum and she has already provided us with one good story: on November 7 RFE/RL reported that her chief spokesperson, Catherine Ray, married a partner in a Brussels public relations firm that lobbied for Gazprom. Love, of course, can blossom in the most unlikely conditions but is there not a hint of a clash of interests here? Goodness me, no, announced the EU. Everything is ship-shape and Bristol fashion. I am rather looking forward to what else Signora Mogherini and her office might produce by way of entertainment.

However, we cannot rely on them solely or on Ms Thornberry whose days as a comedienne may well be over. We need Baroness Ashton as well. We also do not want her back in the House of Lords, demeaned though it has been by this and the Blair governments. Keep her on as negotiator-extraordinaire with Iran, say I.

We might never get rid of her

One of the few positive aspects of the routine farce that is known as the appointment and vetting (by the Toy Parliament) of the new Commissioners was the thought that at last we would be getting rid of the ineffable Cathy Ashton, really Baroness Ashton.

Not so but far from it.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton will continue leading nuclear negotiations with Iran until a deal is reached, even if a November deadline is missed, she said on Monday.

Ashton's five-year term as EU foreign policy chief ends at the end of this month, and she had said she would stay on as nuclear negotiator until Nov. 24, the deadline for reaching a long-term settlement with Iran over its nuclear program.

And the chances of that agreement being reached in just over a month a precisely nil. Never fear (or, rather, be very afraid):

Asked if she would continue beyond that date if necessary, she told reporters at an EU foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg: "I have been asked to carry on until it's done."

How is that for reassuring news?

The EU's role in Ukraine's problems

This is still not a long posting about Ukraine but I noticed that at least one person has said something I've been saying almost since the Ukrainian events began: the EU is of no relevance to anything that happens in that country. President Yanukovich's refusal to initial the trade agreement last year may well have triggered off the first demonstrations but it all developed into a general discontent with the government, the political system, the corruption and the general dysfunctionality of the country. The fact that there are demonstrations and discontents in the east of the country, in the areas that are generally pro-Russian and where Yanukovich was supposed have a great deal of support is indicative of that.

Fortunately for my self-esteem the person voicing similar opinions is Andrey Kurkov, Ukraine's best and funniest modern novelist, whose political satire, Death and the Penguin, captured readers' imagination in many parts of the world.

According to him, the not-so fragrant Cathy Ashton, the High Panjandrum of EU foreign policy is not known in Ukraine at all and nobody hears of her shuttling back and forth, repeatedly announcing a break-through or lack of one.

“There is not much information about their visits and most people don’t know who they are. Among those who do know, quite a lot of them think they do not take Ukraine seriously, that they come here to show their own public that they care about what’s going on,” he said.

He noted the EU diplomats get coverage almost exclusively on internet media.

All of that is true enough but the question remains: exactly what can the EU do to sort out what is an internal Ukrainian crisis growing out of the country's internal problems? Individually, we can support the opposition, assuming we know what they want but will that make any difference? The question Ukraine faces comes in two parts: will it be Russia's colony or will it be an independent democracy that looks to the West while, obviously, not losing her links with Russia, an impossibility in any case: and, secondly, will it be another post-Soviet autocracy like almost all the successor states or will it finally become what it should always have been:a constitutional democracy that relies on the rule of law? Where, in all that, is the European Union?

The highly effective Cathy Ashton

Cathy Ashton (Baroness Ashton) is the High Panjandrum of EU foreign policy and, as such, spends a great deal of money on her staff and on jetting round the world talking to people and settling issues according to her and her minions.

Since the nearest issue to be settled is in Ukraine, off she went there.

The European Commission released a statement regarding the topic in Brussels on Sunday.

"He [Barroso] recalled the need to respect and to exert maximum restraint. He announced that the High Representative/Vice-President, Catherine Ashton, would travel to Kiеv this week to support a way out of the political crisis," the statement said.

Jolly good. Alas, things worked out slightly differently. Yesterday the Ukrainian police moved against the camping protesters in Kiyiv and clashes broke out, the police taking the central square just hours after the High Panjandrum arrived in the city.

As EUObserver puts it: Ukraine police attack protesters under Ashton's nose.

According to the BBC's latest report both the police and the protesters have pulled back from their previous positions and the Interior Minister Vitali Zakharchenko has promised no use of force and called on everyone to calm down. More people are pouring into the city to lend support and solidarity to those already there but  it seems unlikely that President Yanukovich will do a U-turn on his previous U-turn. And if he does? What will happen if other demonstrators come out demanding that he stick to his agreement with Russia? Will Cathy Ashton make another trip to produce a political solution?

Can't help laughing

Politicians' self-importance is always a matter of great amusement; Western politicians's self importance when they pronounce on matters they know nothing about and can do nothing about is even more amusing; but nothing can beat the self-importance of EU politicians pronouncing on many subjects, none of which they understand or could possibly affect. As it happens, there is something a little funnier even than that: the media taking these people seriously.

Let us look at the High Panjandrum of EU foreign policy, the Lady Ashton or, as she prefers to be known nowadays, Cathy Ashton. This morning I received by e-mail the following selection of headlines about the lady's activity:

EU foreign policy chief praises 'calm' presidential vote in Mali. Well gosh, that must have cheered them up in Mali no end. Would they even have heard of the lady or known that neither she nor any one of her colleagues, including the several Presidents, have been elected?

After that, it's a joyous festival of irrelevance:

EU foreign policy chief arrives in Egypt to meet with leaders

EU's Ashton on mediation mission to Egypt, which, to be fair, became Egypt sides defiant as EU envoy seeks compromise. Is she the High Panjandrum, a mere envoy or, as the article describes her, Europe's top diplomat who fruitlessly shuttles between the various factions?

Al-Arabiya said that EU's Ashton headed to Cario for talks while according to Fox News EU's Ashton arrives in Cairo as crisis deepens. Post hoc is not necessarily propter hoc.

Then we have EU's Ashton in Egypt for Second Time in Two Weeks, not a definition of success; EU's Ashton visits Egypt, calls to return to civilian rule and EU's Ashton on mediation mission to Egypt post Cairo violence.

And all the time they know and we know and they know that we know that it makes no earthly difference to anyone or anything what that incompetent and grossly overpaid woman says or does.

More trouble for the Baroness

Or is it more trouble from the Baroness? No sooner do we hear about extended criticisms of her abilities and achievements and of her inadequate responses than we find out that the lady is going back on her cast iron guarantee promise of a "budget-neutral" European diplomatic service.

Lady Ashton, the best paid female politician in the Western world, angered national governments with a poor performance as Europe's foreign minister.

Her demands for an extra £22 million in funding for this year fuels criticism as it breaches her promise to set up a "budget neutral" European diplomatic service.

In a new move that has infuriated Britain, which has made deep cuts to the foreign office, a report published yesterday, by Lady Ashton, has now completely ditched the pledge of funding her European External Action Service (EEAS) from existing EU budgets without making new spending demands.

Mind you, I am not sure what Mr Waterfield means by that ridiculous phrase "infuriated Britain". Which part of Britain? The FCO? I hardly think so, given their attitude to the project. The rest of the country? Don't suppose they even know about it. The Conservative Party? They are still bleating like blessed baa-lambs about their hero vetoing that treaty.

Is this true?

Der Spiegel reports rather huffily that Britain has been obstructing the building up of a common EU foreign policy. Generally speaking one needs to take these complaints with a large dose of salt. Common statements are not as important as all that and, if needs be, France will deviate from them as well. What matters is the slow building up of the structures and that proceeds apace.

During the Second Reading debate of Lord Pearson's Bill, Lord Stevens of Ludgate said [scroll down to Column 1248]:

I do not propose to spend much time on discussing where all the EU money goes, suffice it to say that a prime example of what appears to me as a layman to be gross duplication and waste is the new foreign service. Its budget is 20 times the cost of the UK's Foreign Office and includes among other items £33 million for 150 bomb-proof limousines for all EU ambassadors. The number of staff employed by its quangos and committees alone has tripled during the past five years, amounting to a total cost of more than £2 billion in 2011. It has just opened a new £25 million office in London, and our Foreign Secretary has claimed that the UK Government have brought the EU budget under control. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, could confirm in his reply that the UK has no liability for any losses incurred by the ECB, another potential burden on this country.

While there is a foreign service it will find work for itself despite the notorious incompetence of Lady Ashton (her official page on the EU website is here). Whoever was putting a spoke into those plans it was not our Cathy Ashton as this article in the Telegraph makes clear.

What is so odd about the Spiegel story is that the paper has, inevitably, running detailed accounts of the eurozone mess. And yet they can seriously announce that yet another "common policy" is something to strive for.

Well, what can the EU do apart from emitting hot air?

It goes without saying that I do not agree with those who think that somehow or other the scenes from Libya (or Egypt, or Bahrain, or Tunisia) are an inspiration to us all except to start thinking a bit. No, we are not in the same situation. We elected the shower that is in government here and that is more than the people of Libya etc etc can say. Furthermore, riots are nasty things as some of the stories that have come out prove it. The story of the vicious attack on the CBS journalist has been spun by some as something that can happen only in Muslim countries. Don't you believe it.

There is no real point in my blogging about those exciting events (however they may turn out in the short or longer term) as the media is covering them fairly extensively. No, I have no idea why David Cameron has jetted off to Egypt and why he thinks it necessary to be the first European leader (if one can use such an expression) to talk to the military in charge of that country. I'd like to think that he is there to tell them that the good times are over and they'll be getting aid no more but, somehow, I doubt it. Perhaps, he is negotiating an even bigger chunk of aid.

Meanwhile, there has been a certain amount of brouhaha about some European reactions to events in Libya in this case. EU Observer reports somewhat disingenuously that Italy and Czech Republic back Gaddafi despite bloodbath. Not a particularly wise thing to do as Gaddafi seems to have fled with a very slim chance of ever coming back.

It seems that our old friend the Common Foreign Policy has once again gone AWOL.

The EU is struggling to speak with one voice following a massive loss of life in Libya over the weekend and the regime's vow to fight protesters to the "to the last bullet. EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has spoken of her "extreme concern," while Rome does not want to "disturb" strongman Moammar Gaddafi and Prague has warned of a "catastrophe" if he falls.

One can't help suspecting that the catastrophe Italy is talking about is the possible flood of refugees from Libya.

But what of the Czech Foreign Minister, Karel Scwarzenberg? Ought he not speak up against a tyrant and for the people's desires to have freedom? It seems that what he said was something a little different. As EU Observer puts it:

"If Gaddafi falls, then there will be bigger catastrophes in the world," he told journalists in the EU capital on Sunday. "It's no use for anyone if we intervene there loudly, just to prove our own importance."

In other words, Baroness Ashton should stop sounding off on something neither she nor the rest of the EU can do anything about. With which sentiment one can heartily agree.

Well, diddums!

Baroness Ashton, the erstwhile CND treasurer, now the EU's High Representative on foreign affairs, is not having a good time according to this article by Bruno Waterfield.

Brussels is at war with itself and Baroness Ashton of Upholland is losing on every front. It is just three months into her job as the EU's first ever foreign minister and Lady Ashton has "travelled the distance from being the nobody, that everybody loved to mock, to becoming the mediocrity, that everybody loves to hate".

That acid assessment, made by an official from a rival Brussels camp, is hostile but expresses a widely held belief that Lady Ashton has become the "fall guy" in unprecedented bureaucratic warfare unleashed by the Lisbon Treaty.

Europe teeters on the brink of a sovereign debt, Greek default, or worse, crisis and is struggling to assert itself in a G2 world dominated by the US and China. But rather than facing outwards, Brussels is gloomily gazing inwards and increasingly blaming Lady Ashton for the EU's marginalisation on the global stage.

"We have fought tooth and nail for nine years to get the Lisbon Treaty, or some form of EU Constitution. Can this really be what it is about?" said a French official.

Yes, it probably is. Quel dommage!

It seems that the lady is not competent enough to understand when she is being set up to be the fall guy (or dame) for other people's incompetence - she missed an important meeting with defence ministers that was also attended by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato chief, in Majorca.

In fact, as her officials and British diplomats have since observed, Lady Ashton had changed her plans, switching from Spain to visit Ukraine for the inauguration of President Yanukovych in Ukraine, on the explicit instruction of EU foreign ministers on Monday. Setting her up for the fall, both Herman Van Rompuy, the EU President and Jose Manuel Barroso, the Commission President, who would usually carry out such duties, had declined to travel to Kiev.

Ironically, Mr Van Rompuy's excuse was a Thursday night speech on EU foreign policy to the eurocrat training university, the College of Bruges. Mr Barroso begged off because he had a Brussels lunch date with Kenneth Clarke, the pro-EU shadow Business Secretary. Mr Morin, the Frenchman who led the criticism, had himself only turned up for a few hours of the two day defence meeting because he was trying to avoid an angry backlash from Eastern European countries furious at the French sale of a high-technology Mistral class warship to Russia, their old enemy.

It is so good to see that European friendship and cordiality is thriving.