[A-List] The Policy Network

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

While most attention here has been directed to the Policy Network when
looking at the informal non-governmental and transnational network efforts
focused on the EU, we have briefly encountered George Weidenfeld's "Club of
Three" initiative before:

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2002w31/msg00009.htm

If you check out the following link, you'll get an idea of what this is
about, and how much it overlaps with the Policy Network, and what the
crucial differences are:

http://www.iwm.at/publ-nl/nl-75.pdf

At this page are "highlights" from a two day conference held in November
2001 and organised by the Club of Three, an informal network of the "great
and good" of Britain, France and Germany, the three main power-brokers
within the EU. Unlike the Policy Network, which is Third Way Social Democrat
in orientation and pan-EU, the Club of Three transcends nominal political
divides in favour of a pro-EU agenda that helps cement UK-German-French
ties, and thereby promotes a common agenda among the three. The article
referred to above shows certain strong overlaps between C3 and the Policy
Network:

UK Labour Party bigwigs "Baroness" Margaret Jay and Peter Mandelson were
present, as was Hakluyt director and former London Weekend Television
colleague of Mandelson, Michael Maclay. Maclay is a zealous campaigner for
great UK participation in Europe, if his participation at an academic
political science conference 3 years ago is anything to go by:

See http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2001III/msg00429.html

Maclay also writes occasionally for "Prospect" magazine, set up and edited
by former FT journalist David Goodhart. The last issue of "Lobster" magazine
featured a comment which hit the nail right on the head for me when it
mentioned that the questionable purpose of "Prospect" might not be too
difficult to fathom given the distinct resemblance it bears to another
former fixture of the British intellectual firmament, the CIA-funded
"Encounter". David Marquand was mentioned as one example of continuity in
this regard, although we must also note that Marquand has contributed an
article to the re-launched "New Left Review" which, under the irritatingly
pompous editorship of Perry Anderson now describes itself as a vehicle for
"The politics, economics and culture of a contemporary non-conformism". Oh,
how excitingly original! Here was me thinking LM/Spiked had cornered that
market. How long before Michael Maclay and Peter Mandelson start appearing
in the pages of this august "non-conformist" journal?

Meanwhile assorted non-New Labour Britons mingling amongst the canapés
included "Lord" Douglas Hurd, former foreign secretary, Weidenfeld himself,
Charles Grant - the director of the Centre for European Reform, a pro-EU
think tank very close to current UK policy, and Hella Pick, journalist at
the Guardian, among others.

Other participants included French establishment policy wonk Dominique Moisi
(posts passim), Thierry de Montbrial (international relations expert,
Institut de France), a very high-powered and large team of Austrians
including Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel, and Kurt Biedenkopf, prime minister
of Saxony.

Here's a recent article published in the FT from CER's Charles Grant,
arguing very much along lines championed by the UK government:



The European Union needs a new leader

By Charles Grant
Financial Times: 07 October 2002

Who leads the European Union? With 10 countries due to join in 2004, a
constitutional convention under way and Europe struggling to find a voice on
the world stage, the Union has never been in greater need of visionary
leadership. But from whom?

The European Commission is a pale shadow of its former self, lacking the
self-confidence and authority it enjoyed in the era of Jacques Delors. The
six-month rotating presidency of the Council of Ministers is no longer taken
seriously outside the EU, where governments complain about its constantly
shifting priorities and personnel. Meanwhile the Franco-German alliance,
which once provided informal leadership, is moribund: France and Germany
have not launched a significant joint initiative since Jacques Chirac became
French president in 1995.

But what of the European Council, where the heads of government and the
Commission president are supposed to discuss strategy? This has become a
bureaucratic circus, with many national delegations running to over a
hundred officials. Adding 10 new members after enlargement can only make the
situation worse. The prime ministers spend too long on technical questions
that ministerial councils have failed to resolve. Their meetings often
produce fine declarations, such as that on economic reform at Lisbon in
2000, but there is no effective mechanism for ensuring that prime ministers
fulfil their promises.

The European Council should appoint a full-time chairman, to serve for up to
five years - as do European commissioners and members of the European
parliament. Someone with the standing of a former prime minister would be
ideal. Three current prime ministers back the idea: Britain's Tony Blair,
Spain's José Mara Aznar and Italy's Silvio Berlusconi. So do President
Chirac, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, president of the Convention, and Giuliano
Amato, his deputy.

However, virtually none of the EU's smaller countries, nor the states that
are preparing to join, like the idea. They believe that a European Council
chairman would tip the balance of power within the EU in favour of the
governments of big countries, against the Commission, which they see as
their friend and protector. They fear this scheme is a ploy for the large
countries to run the EU via an informal inner circle.

But that should not be the objective. The chairman's role should be to set
the agenda for summit meetings, to focus the discussions and ensure that
they tackle strategic issues. He or she would need to press national leaders
to keep their promises, especially in areas where the Commission lacks
authority, such as judicial co-operation, foreign policy and budgetary
discipline.

Part of the job would be to speak for Europe to the rest of the world.
Javier Solana, the High Representative, already does that - but he moves at
the level of foreign ministers. Mr Solana has close contact with Colin
Powell, US secretary of state, but does not have the clout to see President
George W. Bush. It was Mr Blair, Mr Chirac and Gerhard Schröder, the German
chancellor, who went to see the US and Russian presidents after September 11
2001; and rightly so, because the EU institutions lacked a leader of
sufficient credibility.

Evidently, a European Council chairman would enjoy access in those capitals
only if he or she had the confidence of EU prime ministers, a first-class
international reputation and the ability to express a common position
forcefully and eloquently. The more successful this chairman became, the
less justification Mr Blair and Mr Chirac would have for their own solo
diplomacy.

Critics of such a post claim that the chairman would become tied up in turf
wars with the High Representative or the Commission president. However, many
prime ministers get along fine with their foreign ministers. And while the
High Representative would work full-time on the detail of foreign policy,
there would be occasions when the EU needed a single voice at the highest
level.

As for the relationship between the chairman and the Commission president,
their roles would have to be precisely defined to minimise arguments between
them. The European Council should set grand strategy and take the lead in
foreign and defence policy. A strong Commission should work to implement
that strategy and take the lead on internal issues, such as the single
market, as well as external issues where it has a primary role, such as
trade negotiations. But it should restrain its ambitions in foreign policy,
where most governments want it to play a secondary role.

The smaller member states will not accept a European Council chairman unless
they get something in return. They want to strengthen the role of the
Brussels institutions and believe that if the European parliament had a role
in choosing the Commission president, both bodies would gain some
legitimacy. Messrs Aznar, Berlusconi, Blair and Chirac may have to pay that
price if they want their chairman idea to fly. The EU would then have two
strong leaders, a European Council chairman and a Commission president. The
balance between the governments and the supranational institutions would be
preserved. And the EU would have the leadership it so desperately needs.

The writer is director of the Centre for European Reform