From OpenEurope
Juncker approved, Hague out, Lord Hill to Brussels: what does it mean?
This morning and last night saw three developments with importance for the UK’s Europe debate:
- William Hague resigned as Foreign Secretary, replaced by Phillip Hammond, with the Cabinet becoming more Eurosceptic overall,
- In nominating Lord Hill – the current leader of House of Lords – as the UK’s European Commissioner, Number 10 prioritised a ‘fixer’ and avoiding by-election over sending a heavy-hitter,
- MEPs approved Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission President by 422 votes to 250, marking the starting point of a more politicised European Commission.
What does this mean?
The reshuffle: The Cabinet has clearly taken a more Eurosceptic turn. In Philip Hammond, the UK has a Foreign Secretary who has said he would vote to leave the EU if it does not reform. In itself this is not a radical position; the logic of the Conservative position has always been that advocating an ‘in’ vote is dependent on achieving reform and Cameron himself has said a UK exit would be “imaginable”. However, the key question is the threshold for staying in – how much needs to change for a Tory government to advocate an ‘In’ vote – and although Hammond has not set out his own red lines, he undoubtedly has a higher threshold than Hague.
In that sense, Hammond’s appointment sends a clear message both at home and abroad – reform is not just desirable but fundamental to the UK’s EU membership. On one hand, Hammond’s appointment may make it harder to meet the threshold , but the flip-side is that any ‘In’ endorsement by Hammond would carry more weight than one by Hague. However, it’s far from clear that Hammond will stay on as Foreign Secretary after the elections in any case so this is very much about pre-election position.
In terms of the broader picture, the centre of gravity around the cabinet table has shifted in a more Eurosceptic direction. Ken Clarke – the last heavy hitting pro-integration Tory – loses his position as Cabinet Minister without portfolio, Michael Fallon has been promoted to Defence Secretary, while Dominic Grieve – a staunch defender of the European Convention on Human Rights – has been replaced as Attorney General by Jeremy Wright. The latter move in particular suggests that the Conservatives could be gearing up to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the enforced departure of Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has slightly counter-balanced this shift.
Lord Hill’s nomination: David Cameron has clearly let other considerations trump sending the highest profile candidate to Brussels. In particular, the Tory leadership was absolutely adamant it had to avoid a by-election for fear of losing political momentum ahead of the general election. Therefore, it had a very small pool to choose from, with the fundamental problem being that the Tories have not been a party of government for some time, meaning they did not have many heavy hitters floating around outside the Commons. Lord Hill is clearly an experienced political operator who is highly rated amongst colleagues and has considerable PR skills. He has also worked at the heart of government, including as Chief of Staff to John Major, during which he was involved in negotiating the Maastricht Treaty. Still, Cameron is in a similar position to where Gordon Brown was in 2009, when Brown appointed Catherine Ashton – who also was the leader of the House of Lords and unknown outside Westminster. What’s different is that Number 10 has prioritised what it calls a ‘fixer’ who can work the corridors in Brussels, seeing that as the best way to get the Commission onside in crucial areas such as rules on access to benefits for EU migrants and trade liberalisation. This was something that Gordon Brown clearly neglected and, to be fair, something sorely needed. If Number 10 is right, the nomination could still prove a success – but it will no doubt be heavily criticised until then.
Will Lord Hill get a top job?
The chances of the UK securing one of the key portfolios in the next European Commission – internal market, competition or trade – have worsened but have not been completely squashed. First, in a Commission filled with former and even current foreign ministers and prime ministers, Lord Hill will struggle to compete on merit. Secondly, his CV doesn’t easily lend itself to one of these portfolios. He founded and sold a PR firm and has experience from across governmental departments but no clear ‘economic portfolio’ type experience. Thirdly, he is not a woman, which would have been one way for the UK to massively boost its chances for a good job. Having said, it’s too early to jump to conclusions, not least since several portfolios – included internal market – are expected to be broken up, making the job allocation unusually unpredictable. (Further Reading on the Open Europe blog: Who is Lord Hill?)
Juncker’s approval: MEPs today voted by 422 votes to 250, with 47 absentions to approve Juncker as the next European Commission President. With the backing of both MEPs and EU leaders, the debate moves on the other top jobs with the European Council President – who will preside over potential EU-UK renegotiations – a key position. The vote – via a secret ballot – was in many ways a formality but the relatively wide margin in favour of Juncker will likely reinforce his perceived mandate to make the European Commission, as he put it, “very political”. Today marks the starting point of that.
via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1p2kanu Tyler Durden