Here is another "good" idea from the EU

It really is worth remaining in that political structure as it comes up with such brilliant ideas. Yesterday I saw on EUObserver that the EU intends to put culture at the heart of its foreign policy. Well, naturally, as an EU foreign policy is impossible in the normal course of events because the various member states have different and conflicting interests, it has to be created through other methods and putting "culture at the heart of it", whatever that might mean is as good an idea as any other.

"In the era of social media and shrinking distances, our cultures are bound to meet," said EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. The plans will be implemented via 139 delegations and offices already operating around the world,

This is not the first time that "culture" has been invoked to create a single policy or a single "European" identity. The whole idea is barmy: the whole point of European culture is its diversity (it's a real word if you use it correctly), not some state sponsored structure though that, too, has been tried before.

Here is the press release on the subject and it enlightens us a little bit:

The strategy adopted today is in line with the Commission's priority to make the EU a stronger global actor. Culture can play a crucial role in strengthening international partnerships.

The 'Strategy for international cultural relations' presented by the European Commission and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy aims at encouraging cultural cooperation between the EU and its partner countries and promoting a global order based on peace, the rule of law, freedom of expression, mutual understanding and respect for fundamental values.

EU High Representative and Vice-President Federica Mogherini said: "Culture has to be part and parcel of our foreign policy. Culture is a powerful tool to build bridges between people, notably the young, and reinforce mutual understanding. It can also be an engine for economic and social development. As we face common challenges, culture can help all of us, in Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia, stand together to fight radicalisation and build an alliance of civilisations against those trying to divide us. This is why cultural diplomacy must be at the core of our relationship with today's world."

European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, Tibor Navracsics, said: "Culture is the hidden gem of our foreign policy. It helps to promote dialogue and mutual understanding. Culture is therefore crucial in building long-term relationships with countries across the whole world: it has a great role to play in making the EU a stronger global actor."

European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, Neven Mimica, and Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, Johannes Hahn, welcomed the Strategy, in line with the recently adopted 2030 Agenda acknowledging global citizenship, cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue as overarching principles of sustainable development and for the EU's neighbourhood and enlargement policies.

Culture can play an important role in the EU's foreign policy. Cultural cooperation counters stereotypes and prejudice by nurturing dialogue, open-mindedness, dignity and mutual respect. Inter-cultural dialogue can help prevent conflicts and foster reconciliation within and between countries. Culture can help respond to global challenges such as the integration of refugees, countering violent radicalisation and the protection of the world's cultural heritage. Culture can also be a tool to deliver important social and economic benefits both within and outside the EU.

The lack of meaning in that gobbledy-gook will not prevent large amounts of money being spent on this propaganda campaign - you like Michelangelo's work? well, he would not have been able to do that without the EU. As to freedom of speech, I am not sure the EU and Signora Mogherini know what that means.

A new global strategy is coming our way

Every now and then I take a look at what is going on with that misbegotten idea the common foreign and security policy. The one thing we can say for certain about the events of the last few weeks is that the policy has not been much in evidence and the "beneficent crisis" that the EU was hoping to use for its own purposes has turned out to be the exact opposite, throwing up the serious divisions between various countries. In fact, I am hearing complaints about the effect the migrant crisis might have on the European Union and further integration.

Regardless of all that, I am happy to say, there will be a new EU global strategy on common foreign policy, security policy drawn up by June 2016. I cannot help quoting the old saying: "we should live so long". The language of the following quote is a little odd but it comes from a Bulgarian news site and I assume that, like most Slavonic languages, Bulgarian does not have any definite or indefinite articles:

Common foreign policy and security policy will have to be more strategic and appropriate for the increasing extremism and radicalization threats.

The fight against terrorism and hybrid threats calls for a common EU response in close cooperation with NATO, the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the African Union (AU) as well as dialogue with main international partners, the participants in the event believe.

The trend of differentiation of the southern and eastern dimension was reaffirmed in the sphere of the European neighbourhood policy, according to Ms Grozdanova [Chairperson of the Foreign Policy Committee].

The need of European neighbourhood policy being more closely tied to other instruments, among which are migration and border management, was pointed out.

You get the drift: another global strategy after many discussions and meetings, paid for by the taxpayer and paid for handsomely, after which nothing much will happen except a few more disasters that we cannot deal with. I think my idea of taking over the EU buildings and using them for migrant processing centres is a much better one.

More about that common foreign policy

One of the most remarkable aspects of the entire Russian/Ukrainian/anyone else who is on the Russian border crisis has been the irrelevance of the EU as an entity. Undoubtedly that is why there are these strenuous efforts being made on both sides of the argument to talk up its role either as the initiator of one particular stage of the crisis (is that hysterical laughter I hear from the Kremlin?) or as the obvious solution to it (and that is definitely the sound of bemused silence).

So, assuming that for once the EU has some kind of an idea of what its policy is (a tall assumption) do we actually have countries falling into line with it? Well, no, since you ask, we don't.

There is the bizarre behaviour of the  Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán who is playing some kind of a convoluted game with Russia, the rest of the EU and his own people, relying, on assumes on that well-known Hungarian ability to come out ahead in a revolving door even if one went in behind someone. This may be a heresy but I have to admit that I am not sure that always works.

Then there is Greece that every now and then threatens to subvert the sanctions on the grounds that they do not like what the EU is doing to a fellow Orthodox country or because the Germans owe them reparations or because they are just feeling bloody-minded. None of these threats have actually come to anything yet.

Italy is making unhappy noises and, in connection with that let me point to an interesting piece of information in the recent House of Lords Report on the EU and Russia (ch. 2 para. 19):

The exposure of UK banks to Russia is fairly low at $14.2 billion, below that of France ($47.7 billion), Italy ($27.7 billion) and Germany ($17.7 billion), all of which have much smaller banking sectors.

Though there has been "a marked decrease in the exposure of European banks to Russia between the third quarter of 2013 and the second quarter of 2014", these are worrying figures for France and Italy.

We also have a problem with Cyprus. This was discussed in the House of Lords on March 10 when Lord Sharkey asked HMG

what discussions they have had with the Governments of the Republic of Cyprus and other European Union member states about the proposal to establish a Russian military base on Cyprus.

Well, indeed. An interesting problem in view of the EU trying to keep all its little soldiers in one box. Could it be that the member states do not think their interests are quite unanimous?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns replied:

My Lords, we have been and remain in regular discussion with the Republic of Cyprus about security and defence matters, and have been briefed on the agreement signed in Moscow. The Cypriot Government have assured us that these agreements represent a continuation of existing arrangements. We continually stress to our EU partners the need for EU unity in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Lord Sharkey's follow-up question was a little more pointed though, as a matter of courtesy, he ought to have thanked the Minister for her reply:

The fact is that, in return for debt relief, Cyprus has formalised an agreement to let Russian warships use its ports. There is also talk of use of an airbase at Paphos, which is 40 miles from our base at Akrotiri. President Putin has said that this deal should not cause any worries anywhere. Does the Minister agree with President Putin or does she agree with the United States State Department’s comment on the Cyprus deal that now is not the time to be doing business as normal with Russia?

Not quite, said the Minister:

My Lords, I have made it clear in this House before that it cannot be business as usual with Russia while it maintains its position over Ukraine, where it has illegally annexed the Crimea and intervened in another state’s sovereign lands. My noble friend refers to a situation in the Republic of Cyprus that I do not recognise. When speaking to Russian media, President Anastasiades explicitly ruled out the use of Limassol port for military purposes. Foreign Minister Kasoulides also said to the press, after the February EU Foreign Affairs Committee meeting in Brussels, that there was no question of Russian air or naval military bases on the soil of Cyprus. It is a continuation of existing agreements.

Subsequent comments referred to other countries that are falling out of line with no solution to the problem being proposed.

Muddled may be one word of describing it

Following on from my previous posting about the impossibility of an EU foreign policy (though still not taking up Mr Lucas's challenge directly) this blog's attention has been called to an interesting item on the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) site:

The European Commission is questioning whether to drop its European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) and appears open to the possibility of closer cooperation with Russia.

The possibilities, spelled out in a draft document seen by RFE/RL, are part of an effort to come up by this autumn with concrete proposals for reforming the ENP.

The draft document, titled Towards A New Neighborhood Policy, will be presented to EU states on March 4 by foreign-policy chief Federica Mogherini and Neighborhood Commissioner Johannes Hahn.

It would appear from the article that the document asks questions rather than makes suggestions and the details may well be changed before March 4 (that is, tomorrow). Perhaps, the document should have been presented on March 5, the anniversary of Stalin's death but that might have been too full of symbolism. Let us simply note that in the wake of Boris Nemtsov's assassination within 200 meters of the Kremlin and while Russian ... how shall I put it? ... interest? .... involvement? ... in eastern Ukraine, the territory of a sovereign state, continues the EU's foreign policy High Panjandrum thinks that the best way forward is to have closer relations with Russia. (For the benefit to some of my readers I should point out that the alternative to having closer relations with a country one distrusts is not necessarily going to war with it.)

Not that it is such a bad idea to review and, perhaps, to abandon the European Neighbourhood Policy as it makes very little sense in its present form - there is no sense to having the same arrangements with countries that are very different. However, as I pointed out in that posting, the EU finds it quite difficult to have a policy that is not a generalized regional one because it finds it quite hard to have a common foreign policy not having a common foreign interest.

In view of recent developments in and around Russia it will be interesting to see that this new, rather desperate proposal for a common policy, which does not consult the UK's interests, will be just another attempt at appeasement or will come up with some rational suggestions. At present it looks like the former or neither, rational ideas not being part of the High Panjandrum's arsenal.

In the meantime, the House of Lords Grand Committee has debated and agreed to the Association Agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

Should we really abandon discussions of Brexit because of Russia? - 1

On Tuesday evening I attended an event organized by the Foreign Policy Centre (partner: the European Commission) at which they launched their new publication, Trouble in the Neighbourhood? The Future of the EU's Eastern Partnership. There is a good deal to say about the publication but in this posting I want to concentrate on something that came up during the panel presentation and discussion (all of which was about forty minutes too long).

But first: we have yet another agreement between Ukraine, Russia and, to represent the EU and the West in general, Germany and France (I'll come to that later on). The agreement, though arrived at after an all-night sitting, does not seem to be that different from the one signed in September, which was broken within hours.

As Baroness Falkner of Margravine said in the debate that followed the Statement on Ukraine in the House of Lords, also on Tuesday:

Does my noble friend accept that in the unlikely circumstance that we have progress in Minsk tomorrow and that Mr Putin sticks to his word perhaps for more than an hour or two, or even a day or week or two, the holding of any ceasefire is contingent on the verifiable force of peacekeepers?

Indeed, that debate showed that few of the peers, interested enough in the subject to participate, had any illusions about the Russian President (who continues to look ever less like a human being and ever more like somebody who could be put next to the Lenin wax work in the Mausoleum).

One of the participants in the FPC discussion was Edward Lucas of the Economist, a man who is very knowledgeable about Russia and other countries that had formerly been either in the Soviet Union or the European Communist sphere but whose great fault is inability to look beyond the European Union even though he spends a great deal of his time rightly criticizing its activity and non-achievement.

It was he who made the obvious comment that the whole idea of an Eastern Partnership was deeply flawed as it involved treating very different countries, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus as being essentially similar and homogenous. This is, undoubtedly, true but the problem is that this is the only way the EU can create policies. Mr Lucas also added that "we" presumably the West but mostly "Europe", a concept that was mentioned frequently throughout the evening, have no Russia policy. Indeed not. The EU has no Russia policy just as it has no Ukraine or any other policy because it cannot have one.

This goes back to the whole problem of common foreign policy on which I have written so often that it would be impossible to link to the various postings here or on my erstwhile blogging home, EUReferendum. Foreign policy has to grow out of some definition of interest and the European Union's member states have no common interests while the Union's own interests do not extend much beyond survival and ever closer integration. (In fact, one of the member states, Greece, is an ally of the Putin government and has always been pro-Russian, regardless of what was going on.)

When I first started writing about the common foreign policy and its non-viabiltiy, all those years ago, I compared the EU to an amoeba in that its survival depended on shape changing and swallowing of organisms close to it. At the time the nascent common foreign policy consisted largely of efforts to make the neighbouring countries into member states. There could be no question of policies or relationships. If a country could not become a member then we did not know what to do with it and that, obviously, applied to Russia.

The fall of the Soviet empire presented the EU with various problems, some of which it could solve to its own temporary satisfaction by taking the Central and East European countries in, even though at least two of them, Romania and Bulgaria, remain problematic. The Balkans were and continue to be a mess despite the fact that two of the former Yugoslav republics are now within the EU and little attention was paid to the former Soviet republics except for the Baltic ones that are, as agreed by all, in a different category.

No optimistic or pessimistic analysis can possibly postulate EU membership for any of the countries in question. Therefore, they will remain near (or relatively near) neighbours and some sort of a relationship needs to be established with them. But, not having any particular interests only general, ill-defined "values" the EU cannot do so. Therefore, it has fallen back on its past method of treating all the countries as one region and dealing with them as such. The fact that this method has been unsuccessful in the past does not seem to bother anybody. After all, argue the officials involved, what is successful? We have structures, we have conferences, committees, reports and funds for managing certain problems. What else do we need for success? The fact that we cannot cope and are not set up to cope with the huge crises in the various countries, let alone the war/civil war that is going on in parts of the Ukraine remains a detail.

Mr Lucas is right to point out the faults with this sort of policy but wrong in that he cannot see that it is endemic to the political construct he has (still) such high hopes for.

[I was hoping to cover the subject in just one posting but find that it is not possible. Therefore, I shall put this up on the blog and continue in a second installment.]

Storm in a teacup

This is not another posting about Douglas Carswell. I really do not think there is anything more to be said about him until the Clacton by-election, which will take place on October 9 (earlier than I had expected but the Conservatives may well think it is better to get it all over with as fast as possible) a few days after first the UKIP then the Conservative Party Conference. It seems that the Conservative Party is going to take Carswell's ideas seriously by having an open primary in Clacton.

Let us now turn to the newly chosen top officials in the European Union, which is after all, our real government.

There was, as I recall, quite a fuss about Jean-Claude Juncker becoming President of the European Commission. For the life of me I cannot see why that should be a problem. Would anyone else be any better, given the structure of the European Union and the lack of any kind of accountability among the eurocrats? Why do we go through this ritualistic pretence that the difference between the various candidates (usually two) has any kind of distinction?

Anyway, Commission President Juncker has announced his "team" today though we actually knew one of them already. The new Common Foreign Policy (still in development stages) High Panjandrum, as we know, is Federica Mogherini, a hitherto little known (outside Italy) Italian politician. She will be known as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Policy and Security as well as Vice-President. Here is one article that does not think highly of that choice. I know there were many others from people who fear that she might not be as tough on Russia as Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Minister might have been but who could not get the job as his erstwhile boss, Donald Tusk became President of the Council of Minister.

Mr Tusk has handed in his Cabinet's resignation and has moved on to his new job.

A smooth transition is expected after current Sejm speaker Ewa Kopacz was picked to succeed Mr. Tusk by the ruling center-right coalition, which has a slim but reliable majority in the lower house. Kopacz, previously health minister in Mr. Tusk's cabinet, is set to become the second woman after communism in Poland collapsed in 1989 to head the Polish government.

Though whether everything will go just as smoothly in the next election remains to be seen.

"The main challenge for the next prime minister and the party leader is to reconfigure the party and its leaders in such a manner as to have a realistic chance of winning the next election," said Radoslaw Markowski, professor of political science. "It is normal for a party aiming to become a senior coalition partner and win over 30% support to have factions and managing them will be a challenge."

In actual fact, there is no EU common foreign policy, not even on a subject that ought to be close to most Europeans' interests, that is Russian behaviour in eastern Poland, where Russian soldiers unaccountably keep straying over the border and whence body bags have been going back to the motherland.

When it comes to events further afield, say, in the Middle East, the chances of any kind of an agreement on common interests and common policy are slim, to put it mildly. Whatever policy erupts from the European Union, it tends to come from individual member states.

Let us now turn to the new Commission, the body, which, according to the Consolidated Treaties, the real constitution under which we live, has the sole right to initiate legislation of any kind and has a great many rights to interfere in that legislation to ensure that it is more or less in line with its ideas. Though I have very little time for the sort of nonsense that is usually spouted in the European Parliament and would not like that body to become the legislator in the EU (as numerous misguided media hacks seem to assume it is) I view the EU with the position of the Commission being what it is, a very fine example of governance by management rather than politics.

European Voice has helpfully provided us with a list of the new Commissioners (to be confirmed by the European Parliament) and their assigned portfolios though, curiously, the list is in alphabetical order of member states rather than jobs. Clearly, even European Voice cannot quite bring itself to treat the EU government as a single entity.

Our own Lord Hill, so derided by the cognoscenti though not by this blog, has been given Financial Services, which, given the UK's importance in that sphere, ought to be good news. Whether he will manage to make anything of that and, indeed, whether there is anything to be made of that, remains to be seen. Largely the destruction of financial services has been unrolling for a decade or more and it is hard to see what one Commissioner can accomplish.

The storm continues unabated. Open Europe has been rather pompously giving its advice to the new Commission about the way it ought to proceed:

It is time for the UK and other reform minded countries to put their words into action. By giving the new European Commission a tough mandate, they can ensure that over the next five years the EU focuses on delivering jobs and growth and stops meddling in areas better handled nationally or locally.

While much of the UK’s renegotiation strategy will hinge on striking deals with other national governments, the Commission is vital to improving the EU's day-by-day functioning. From improving transparency to focusing on areas where the EU can truly add value, it is essential that the new Commission has a clear set of boundaries and priorities.

That should sort them all out.

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.

Not her fault

Baroness Ashton was put into the position of the High Panjandrum for the Common Foreign Policy because she was seen to be incompetent enough not to cause any trouble to anybody. She has fulfilled that role admirably while presiding over a huge increase in the personnel of the European External Action Service (EEAS), which has existed for some time but became a separate official body under the Lisbon Treaty and has since grown enormously with 140 EU delegations in various countries.

It seems that the lady can't win. She has been criticized "in a confidential discussion paper signed by the 12 foreign ministers and sent to Ashton last month", to which she has replied in a report on the first year of her ever increasing empire:

Ashton acknowledges problems in the division of roles between the EEAS, launched one year ago this week, and the European Commission. She concedes that there have been serious transitional and structural problems with the EU's 140 delegations abroad. She notes the need to improve policy formulation and delivery, but provides no details as to how she will do so.

Whether her self-defence will satisfy her critics remains to be seen. My suspicion is no and they will have to make a decision on whether they will just put up with expensive incompetence or get somebody who will spend as much money if not more (not that the colleagues care about that) and become rather a nuisance to the various foreign ministers. This is quite interesting, however:

The foreign ministers – including Alain Juppé of France, Guido Westerwelle of Germany, Radoslaw Sikorski of Poland and Carl Bildt of Sweden – said they had “a major interest in a strong and efficient EEAS” and wanted “to help it develop its full potential”. William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, did not endorse the paper and its implicit criticism of Ashton.

It seems that Radoslaw Sikorski is not quite as eurosceptic as he sometimes tries to make out. Also one would like to know why our own Foreign Secretary refrained from signing the paper. Was it that he did not want to criticize la Ashton; was it that he did not agree with the sentiments expressed in it; or was it that he simply was not aware that this criticism was being put together?

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.

On the one hand, on the other hand ...

According to the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European External Action Service and the CFSP High Panjandrum, Baroness Ashton are a wonderful idea and will be an even better idea as it develops. On the other hand, decisions will be taken unanimously and Finland is not about to give up its own representations abroad. So there!

It seems that the Common Foreign Policy is not dead

Well, not according to Steven Vanackere, Belgium's Foreign Minister in its caretaker government. Well, he should know, though I do not consider the comments encouraging:

The minister acknowledged that European countries do not always act in unison.

We are experiencing a shift of foreign policy paradigm, Vanackere said, adding: It will still take time.

But the challenge should inspire us.

The problem remains that common foreign policy cannot be produced without there being a common European interest, which does not exist. However, Mr Vanackere does understand that the structure can be created anyway and put into place without people noticing too much, as has already happened with the External Action Service.

Vanackere stressed that what he acknowledged was a hybrid of policymaking between national governments, which always will reserve the right to make decisions about war and peace, and a growing EU role and bureaucracy in international negotiations.

One day it will be fully in existence (though not functional)and even Conservative "eurosceptics" and the various front organizations will be aware of it.

EU co-operation works (not!)

One of the reasons we are given (though, I must admit, ever less often) for the ineffable necessity for the EU is that all those member states can act together and do nasty things to nasty dictators. Well, the things cannot be too nasty because that would not be in keeping with the soft power the EU favours (though we have not heard much about that either, recently). I do recall a list of fifty reasons why the EU is a good thing, published by the Independent a long time ago in which being able to keep Mugabe out of the EU was one of the really important ones.

The travel ban on Robert Mugabe as well as his friends and relations are of little use. There is always a reason why just this once they must be allowed to come for whatever reason (extensive shopping in his wife's case, using the money they looted from the people of Zimbabwe and the taxpayers of the West).

So, here we go again.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has arrived in Rome for the beatification of the late Pope John Paul II.

An EU travel ban forbids him from visiting member states but the Vatican, where the ceremony will take place, is a sovereign state and not in the EU.

Mr Mugabe, a Roman Catholic, has been allowed to transit through Italy.

Despite the travel ban, Mr Mugabe went to Rome for the funeral of John Paul II in 2005 and for UN food agency conferences in 2008 and 2009.

The sanction on Mr Mugabe was imposed in 2002 over human rights abuses.

Italy's foreign ministry said it had requested an exemption from the EU travel ban for Mr Mugabe.

You know it is a force for good; so why don't you support the EU?

Van Rompuy lives in a parallel universe

That is news in the way dog bites man, gardener digs soil and supermodel takes drugs is news. Not at all, in other words. I do think, however, that Rumpy-Pumpy, as he is know not so affectionately, has surpassed himself this time.

According to a report on EUObserver the misguided Council President announced to the assembled members of the Toy Parliament (well, those who were no away on some jolly or other) that the Libyan enterprise was entirely the doing of the EU.

Apparently, it was all a huge success, a massive bloodbath has been avoided and the action taken by "British, French and UK strikes", which must be a misprint for British, French and US strikes, most of which were US, would not have been possible "without the "clear position" taken on Libya at an EU summit one week earlier". Indeed. I mean what could be more important than a clear position that affects nobody but two member states and the Big Guy over the Pond?

Others, of course, have taken a slightly different position and either stated or bemoaned the fact that the Common Foreign Policy has once again gone AWOL. He doesn't seem to have answered the question of what is going to happen after the Americans have gone home. The EU will rush in there and help somebody or other?

Common Foreign Policy goes AWOL again

So, we have France in the lead with Britain and the United States following. Of course, there is the curious problem of why it took President Obama so long to decide to do anything and the secondary question of who is in charge on the other side of the Pond. Roger Simon deals with those points on Pajamas Media.

A more interesting question for us is where, oh where is the Common Foreign Policy a.k.a. European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Where is the wondrous Baroness Ashton? Why is Europe not speaking with one voice but leaving the problem in that shocking traditional way to individual countries to deal with?

Well you may ask. It seems that the act was not got together again. This time, the fault lies with Germany (France having some traditional interests in North Africa). Germany was one of the abstentions in the UN Security Council and was, indeed, at fault in dragging out the whole process at the UN. Here is an explanation as to why this might have happened with heavy emphasis on internal party politics.

Der Spiegel thinks this could damage Germany's international reputation. And we thought the day of those national problems and competitions has gone.

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.

Speaking rights at the UN

Lady Ashton, now known as Catherine Ashton the High Panjandrum of the EU Common Foreign Policy will definitely have speaking rights at the UN so there will no longer be the embarrassment of the EU's point of view being delivered by the representative of the rotating presidency, which, at the moment, is Belgium. What the good lady will say is, of course, a matter of some doubt. After all, it is not as if the EU actually had a policy.

That, however, does not matter. The EU is proceeding along its usual path: building up structures in the hopes that content will follow. So far, this has not worked with foreign policy, that being the last thing most governments will give up. This may be a small step in terms of real policy but a big step in terms of the Monnet method.

Are they all in this charade?

No way am I going to write about the Sarkozys' personal life. Or lives. Who cares? However, this story, sent to me by a blog reader is off interest. According to the Guardian President Sarkozy intends to warn the Boy-King of the Conservative Party about European defence. Yes, indeed, I hear you: what European defence? If NATO does collapse, thanks to the EU's shenanigans, we shall be left with precious little defence so let us hope nobody takes offence at us.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, is to deliver a firm warning to David Cameron that the Conservatives risk forfeiting vital French co-operation on energy, defence and the economy if they refuse to engage over the future of Europe.

In an attempt to lure the Conservatives into a friendlier stance, Sarkozy may be willing to offer concessions over the future of the European defence agency, seen by the party as the incubator for a future European defence force.

Sarkozy is due to meet Cameron on Friday after a working lunch with Gordon Brown in Downing Street. Sarkozy has developed close relations with Brown.

The EDA was set up in 2004 to develop European military capability and armament co-operation.

On the subject of the EDA and its surreptitious activity the best person to read is the Boss on EUReferendum. He has written a great deal and there is no need for me to copy any of it.

There are, however, other issues here. In the first place, it is of interest that President Sarkozy thinks it is his job to dictate policy to the possible next government of the United Kingdom. But then, the truth is that it is his job. He is part of this country's government as are all the other 25 members of the European Council. So David Cameron had better listen.

A more interesting question is why does President Sarkozy think it is necessary to warn the Conservatives. Surely he does not think that they are about to turn eurosceptic or try to work for Britain's interests or, even, offer a referendum on anything to do with that noxious organization, the European Union. He obviously has not been in communication with the Shadow Foreign Secretary (and who can blame him for that) who said the following (the Guardian leads on the report and the article gets some incredibly stupid and ignorant responses but then what can you expect from Guardianistas):

The fourth theme of Conservative Foreign policy is the effective reform, use and development of international institutions and here we must start in our immediate neighbourhood.

The European Union is obviously an institution of enormous importance to the United Kingdom and its foreign policy. The Conservative Party has seldom shied away from frank criticism when we have thought the EU collectively has been getting things wrong but we have equally been the foremost champions of the EU's greatest achievements: the Single Market and enlargement.

If we win the coming general election, it is our firm intention that a Conservative government will be active and activist in the European Union from day one, energetically engaging with our partners. We will be highly active in furthering the Single Market, in promoting European co-operation on the environment and climate change, on energy security, on pressing for freer and fairer global trade that will benefit not just the peoples of Europe but the world's poorest who have not enjoyed the gains of globalisation.

We will uphold our conviction that the widening of the European Union, including to Turkey, is in Europe's collective interest.

The EU's future 2020 strategy on jobs and growth will, if we get it right, have an important contribution to enhancing Europe's competitiveness. The European Conservatives and Reformists Group's submission on the Strategy is a valuable contribution to the debate.

You have to scroll a fair way down in the speech to find this, so it is interesting that the Guardian picked up on that. Presumably they want more votes to go to UKIP.

The point is that it is all the same old blah: co-operation, heart of Europe, reform from within, blah, blah. At the same time, Mr Hague's earlier comments about Britain's relationship with other countries such as the United States, Australia, Russia and China (to pick some at random, which he seems to have done) indicate that he still does not understand what being in the European Union is all about. Well, let us hope, President Sarkozy can set him right.

Good for the Danes

I wonder if readers of this blog will notice a certain irony in this story:

Danish special forces stormed a ship captured by armed Somali pirates and freed the 25 crew on board, an EU naval spokesman said, marking the first time a warship has intervened during a hijacking.

It's the Danish special forces that did the work and very well, too, by the sound of it. The EU managed to run to a no doubt highly paid naval spokesman. That just about sums up the whole situation.