Brexit, May and Corbyn

Theresa May’s Brexit agreement is still the second-best option for both the UK and the EU. The Prime Minister knows it and I admire her persistence and political courage. Contrary to what many might say, this is not about stubbornness. It is about conviction and wisdom. 

The first-best option would have been a new referendum on the relationship with Europe. But that is now out of the equation, unless there is a political miracle.

The Labour Party’s leader carries a good deal of the responsibility for the missed opportunity of a people’s vote. He has not been clear. Some politicians believe they know how to swim in muddy waters. 

I guess historians will be much nicer to Theresa May than the current conservative media is.

As far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, he might become Prime Minister in the foreseeable future. That will be the lucky turn of the irony dice. Not surprising in an extremely confused political landscape.

Politics has a good lot of ironic turns these days.  

European defence: the way forward

On defence, my position is that in the long-term Europe must have its own capabilities and the ability to defend itself. It is always better to count on one’s force. Moreover, that’s the way to keep an independent international policy and decide about the involvement in other people’s conflicts and other strategic moves.  

It is also the best approach to a balanced relationship with Europe’s key allies, with the US. Indeed, the defence relationship with the US will continue to be a crucial dimension of the European security strategy. However, it cannot remain a lopsided relationship. Europe must be much stronger, closer to the capacity of the US. That would bring balance to the alliance, something that does not exist today and compromises tremendously the interests of both parties. And that puts Europe in a weaker standing.

The road to the long-term objective starts today. For that reason, I agree with those who place the question on today’s EU agenda. I also acknowledge that such discussion and the subsequent plans must not undermine the strength of NATO. They call however for a clear understanding of the roles, in the future, that NATO and the EU Defence should play. That basically means that NATO and Europe will have to coordinate the way they will evolve in the coming years. Transformation for both is inevitable.

Europe and the world powers

The way the international relations have been shaped during the last few years shows that the European Union must above all protect its interests. For that, stronger coordination among the member States is essential.

More than ever it is obvious that big countries in the world have their own strategic goals and those goals might not coincide with the European ones. They might even challenge our own intent, values and objectives. It is therefore critical those big countries be met by a strong will and a clear position on the European side.

That’s a big challenge for the next five years in Europe. Yes, five years, but such time horizon should be part of a longer vision for Europe.

It would be a mistake to try to minimise the geopolitical challenges we face. This is no temporary difficulty, not just because A or B is in power now, in big county Y or Z. This is a firm new trend we should consider strategically.

Europe is different from Russia, China and India. Also, from the USA. That’s the reality that is clearly in front of us. We should seek partnerships with each one of these countries, as we do with other parts of the world. But such partnerships cannot be based on naiveté. Above all, they must be based on a proper balance of power – and power means in the world of today much more than just military might. But it also includes a military dimension, of course.

Juncker´s sucession

Last evening, I watched the debate among the six lead candidates for the European Parliament. This was a good initiative, thanks to Euronews, the TV channel.

Six people is a lot of participants and the conversation is therefore constrained by the time available and the balance that is needed between each candidate. The key subjects end up by being treated superficially, more as statements and slogans and less as part of a substantive dialogue. This was the main limitation. But the discussion took place in a civilised manner and was good enough to keep the viewers interested.

It was also relevant to see two young women in the podium. Both did well, notwithstanding the fact that one is a liberal and the other a green activist. I also found the socialist candidate, Frans Timmermans, to be firm and clear in his positions. He flies much higher than many members of his political family. I do not know what will happen to him in the period ahead, but I am happy to know that at least he will have a strong voice in the next European Parliament.

Manfred Weber is the centre-right candidate. That’s the same European People’s Party to which Jean-Claude Juncker belongs. He is young and has a good track record as a parliamentarian. But he lacks charisma. And he should follow some voice training sessions. Voice power is essential for a leader.

They all aspire to be the next President of the European Commission. I am not sure if anyone of them will get the job. My guess, at this moment, is that Margrethe Vestager stands a good chance. She could be a compromise candidate between the left and the right.

The successor to Juncker must see his or her political family do well in the forthcoming elections. However, that is not enough. The heads of State and government will have a strong say. Their first attempt at deciding who should be the next boss of the European Commission will take place on May 28. At this stage, we can speculate a lot about names. There is already an intense social media exchange about the matter. In my opinion that is, for now, a waste of time.  

Iran and the EU approach

Today, unexpectedly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Brussels. He met the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the UK, and briefly, the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy. The matter was Iran.

The US Administration has placed Iran at the top of its international agenda, next to two other critical themes: the trade talks with China and the internal situation in Venezuela. The American leadership is clearly betting on isolating Iran as a way of weakening the regime. Such policy is above all inspired by advice coming from Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both countries want Iran down.

This is certainly a very risky policy.

The alleged sabotage of four oil tankers in the very sensitive area around the Strait of Hormuz, which was big headlines today, is another very serious development in a very explosive environment. It is unclear what really happened to the ships and who was behind the actions, whatever actions they could have been. To draw any conclusion without more information would be extremely foolish. If there was indeed a big issue with those tankers, if an attack took place, an international commission on enquiry should be mandated to assess the facts. I hope the Europeans told something like that to Pompeo. I expressed interest in being part of the investigation.

I understand there was little common ground today between the visiting Secretary and the EU Ministers. That’s is encouraging. The Europeans must show they have their own way of looking at Iran and the Middle East, for that matter. They appreciate the alliance with the US but, at the same time, they must assert their independent views. Particularly when the gravity of the situation does not allow any misguided approach. As it does not tolerate a partisan policy, choosing the Saudi or the Israel side when the region needs a cool and balanced line to be followed by the Europeans.

Full respect for the British people

In the UK, those Conservative opinion-makers who are unconditionally for Brexit want their readers to believe the EU leaders do not respect the British democratic system and, above all, most of the British people.

That message is false. It is just biased propaganda to justify their own personal frenzy for Brexit.

Brexit might be a major mistake, in terms of its negative consequences for both the UK and the EU. Those fellows know it. But they have a very strong ideological position about it. The extreme Conservatives believe they can gain lots of political leverage if they mine the nationalist feelings that led many citizens to vote for the exit.

That’s what makes such opinion writers tick.

The truth is however very different. In the rest of the EU, the leaders and intellectuals that really matter respect whatever in the end the British will decide about their future links with the European space. We recognise the UK’s right to decide. And there are two more political dimensions we should keep repeating. First, the EU does not want to humiliate the people of the UK and their political establishment. Second, we recognise the evidence that shows that Brexit weakens the UK and the EU. It is bad for both sides.  

Juncker's major shortcoming

On this European Day, I wrote in my Portuguese language blog “Vistas Largas” that a lot has been achieved in terms of our common future and joint response to many challenges. But I also added that the European Commission has been mediocre in matters of strategic communications. There is no Commissioner with that kind of portfolio – this should be corrected when the new team takes power in November. And the Commission seems to believe that press conferences, press releases and a crowd of spokespersons are enough to cover the information needs of the European citizens. That’s not a strategic approach. And the experience has shown that it is not enough to keep the citizens aware and get their active involvement in European matters.

If people do not know, they do not support. And they become vulnerable to those who lie and disseminate anti-EU propaganda. That’s where many of us find ourselves today, a few weeks before the next European parliamentary election.

This is a major failure of the outgoing Juncker team. A far-reaching one.

No let up

The glass might be empty, but it is not broken. 

Stay on message

There is no problem if one keeps repeating the same message because most people are not listening, even when they pretend to. The only advice is to repeat it clearly and gracefully.

Iran and the US: the escalating conflict

The military build-up by the US against Iran is a matter of great concern. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital line of communication. As such, it has the potential to be a major reason for a confrontation. The current US Administration will respond with great show of force to any attempt by Iran to disrupt or control navigation through the Strait.

Iran knows that. But they are being pushed against the wall by the American embargo on their oil exports and might make an error of judgement. That makes the situation in the region more delicate and especially dangerous.

The EU should call for restrain.

Brussels must show leadership and initiative.

Unfortunately, I do not see any appetite in Europe to make a statement against the escalation of the tension in that part of the Middle East. It is true that we are now on the eve of EU elections. But it is also a fact that those in charge of the European institutions are very hesitant when the matter touches the US interests. Even now, when they are at the end of their EU mandates, they lack the stature that a stronger Europe would require.