The
dilemmas of the diplomats tasked with saving the European Union
David
Cameron wants EU diplomats to stay out of UK debate and the UK media
but for some, such as François Hollande, it is impossible to avoid
Patrick Wintour
Thursday 3 March
2016 07.00 GMT
The battle for
Brexit, like the Battle of Waterloo, may ultimately be won or lost on
the playing fields of Eton between two famous old boys, David Cameron
and Boris Johnson. But that does not mean European, and American,
politicians will be entirely absent from the pitch in the next three
months. Indeed, they could play a critical role both by what they say
and how effectively they manage to run the European Union in the
months ahead.
The question for
overseas diplomats is in which role can their leaders best prevent
Brexit. Should the UK’s EU partners cast themselves as concerned
but mute bystanders, or instead intervene, as David Cameron did in
the Scottish referendum, passionately expressing their love and
begging a restless partner not to leave the marital home?
There is no doubt
that EU heads of state want the UK to reject Brexit, so avoiding a
political and economic crisis at a time when Europe, gripped by the
migration crisis, simply cannot afford more disruption. Britain, as
the world’s fifth-largest power, adds to the heft of the EU, and
its pragmatism increases its diversity. Many are worried about the
contagion of referenda spreading through Europe.
But the question for
Downing Street is whether the British respond well to a succession of
European leaders with thick accents, and variable grasp of the
English language, appearing to tell them how to vote.
In a debate about
national sovereignty, the voices of European elites, sometimes short
of pitch perfect to the British debate, could prove
counterproductive.
The European
Commission has taken a virtual vow of silence and is culling any
directives that could, for example, be seen as a threat to the
British tea bag. Anand Menon, professor of European politics at
King’s College, reports: “In Brussels, senior figures in all the
institutions have been told not to denigrate Cameron’s deal, or
suggest it is not binding in law. There was a bit of that after the
summit, but it has now stopped. It is also inadvisable that there are
set-piece speeches setting out their love for Europe”.
But British
pro-Europeans such as Lord Mandelson are urging the UK’s European
partners to find a balance between warning of the dangers of Brexit
in terms of access to the single market and trade deals without
sounding bullying. Lord Mandelson said: “The referendum is a purely
British decision and no one would expect others to advise us how to
vote. Our European partners want us to stay in the EU and so it would
not be surprising for them to say so and explain why Europe should
not be weakened by Britain’s exit.”
He added: “There
are also figures in Brussels who are very much on the reform
wavelength and share Britain’s economic outlook, but the difficulty
is, would British newspapers report them without distorting what they
say?”
The Downing Street
judgment is that it is unavoidable world leaders are recruited to the
cause, so long as it is coordinated with Number 10. The recent
explicit statement by G20 finance leaders in China that Brexit would
be a threat to the world economy was inserted at the request of the
chancellor, George Osborne. Barack Obama, still a trusted voice in
the UK, will use his visit to Europe in the spring to reach out and
urge Britain to stay in the EU. This is not just a favour to Cameron.
Belatedly there is a recognition in Washington of the strains inside
the EU caused by the migration crisis.
In a bid to corral
the intervention, David Cameron’s Downing Street adviser Daniel
Korski met senior diplomats from the 27 other EU states in London
last Friday to take them through the UK government campaign, and urge
them to think carefully about their role.
Korski urged
diplomats that EU politicians should think twice before publicly
belittling or criticising the deal achieved by Cameron in Brussels.
François Hollande, the French president, was mentioned as being
pretty dismissive of the deal. Korski suggested that Number 10 might
be consulted prior to any speeches or other big statements even if
they are aimed at domestic audiences as they may have an impact on
the UK debate, according to reports.
“It is just
sensible that people realise that what they say in their own
countries can have an impact here – to be aware that there’s an
impact in the UK. If a leader stands up and says something to their
own parliament, it won’t just play in their own domestic media, it
will make it to the UK.”
But some diplomats
are tentatively dipping their toe in the British debate.
The German
ambassador, Dr Peter Ammon, has held discreet breakfasts with British
journalists to underline the importance of the UK to Germany. This
week he was even on the campaign trail telling a London symposium
that the choice was voting with your head or heart. “I want the
Brits to keep their heads,” he said. “The romantic dream of
restored sovereignty would turn out to be a pipe dream, because in a
world of globalised political decision-making as well as globalised
production chains and globalised financial markets, it could mean
less power over your country’s fate, not more”. But Ammon was
also modest enough to acknowledge the limits of his persuasive
powers. “I realise most Brits do not wake up each morning asking
themselves what do the Germans think.”
It is likely that
there will also be a string of European finance ministers such as
Italian finance minister Pier Carlo Padoan and his German counterpart
Wolfgang Schaeuble travelling through London to make their warnings
about Brexit.
The dilemma comes to
a head in its most acute form on Thursday when David Cameron and
François Hollande meet for the annual Anglo French summit in Amiens.
The Elysée is aware
the number one question for the British press at the summit is
whether Hollande agrees with Cameron that in the event of Brexit, the
French would be inclined to tear up the bilateral treaty signed in
2003 that allowed the UK border effectively to be moved to Calais.
In short, will
Hollande agree with Cameron that Brexit means the “Jungle”, or
the “swarm”, moves from Calais to the Kent coast? The warning has
been denounced by leading eurosceptics such as David Davis and Liam
Fox as scaremongering.
Hollande could
simply say, as has the British ambassador to London, that the French
reaction is unknowable and instead focus on the recent measures the
security forces have taken this week to reduce the camp’s size,
disperse more refugees to new centres elsewhere in France, speed up
the processing of asylum claims and improve security around the
Channel tunnel entrance.
But Cameron, eager
to highlight the threat to UK borders in the event of Brexit, will
hope Hollande will stand up his warnings about the consequences of
Britain leaving the EU.
Hollande is under
conflicting domestic pressure. The left of his party is threatening
to block him from standing in next year’s elections, fed up with
his shift to the right. But Alain Juppé, the mayor of Bordeaux and
the man at present most likely to win the presidential elections in
June, has recently visited Calais and denounced it as unacceptable.
Juppé’s political
ally in the region, Xavier Bertrand, the recently re-elected
president of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie region, has repeatedly
said the Le Touquet agreement would be torn up if Britain left the
EU. He said: “If Britain leaves Europe, right away the border will
leave Calais and go to Dover. We will not continue to guard the
border for Britain if it’s no longer in the European Union.”
By contrast,
Hollande’s own interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, appeared to
reject different solutions. In October, he said: “Calling for the
border with the English to be opened is not a responsible solution.
It would send a signal to people smugglers and would lead migrants to
flow to Calais in far greater numbers – a humanitarian disaster
would ensue; it is a foolhardy path and one the government will not
pursue”.
So Hollande is
between a rock and a hard place. Whatever he says he will offend one
side or other in the Brexit debate. He is unlikely to be the last
European politician to face this dilemma in the months ahead.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário