Despite opposition from the UK and Hungary, the European Council nominated Jean-Claude Juncker as the next President of the European Commission on 27 June. Eunice Goes writes on the attempt made by British Prime Minister David Cameron to block Juncker’s nomination. She argues that the strategy adopted by Cameron simply served to alienate potential allies and ultimately left the UK isolated in the negotiations.
In one of the many memorable moments from Yes, Prime Minister, mandarin-in-chief Sir Humphrey Appleby suggests some “masterly inactivity” to a premier who is determined to show there is a “firm hand” at the top of government. If in the past weeks a similar suggestion has been made by a real mandarin to the current occupier of Number 10 it looks like the advice has been supinely ignored.
Instead of practicing the important art of masterly inactivity, Prime Minister David Cameron has been conducting a hyperactive and quite ineffective campaign to block the appointment of Luxembourg’s former Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission. Like the fictional Jim Hacker, Cameron wanted to show resolve and principled firmness by blocking the appointment of someone he considers “totally unacceptable” to head the Commission, but doing nothing might have delivered outcomes closer to Britain’s national interest than Cameron’s rather undiplomatic offensive in Brussels.
The nomination of the new president was confirmed at a European summit in Brussels on 27 June, but even before the announcement David Cameron and his government had already managed to look weak, isolated and a bit clueless about how EU politics works. To complain in public, like the chancellor, George Osborne, did this week, that European leaders “are saying quite a lot of things privately which they are not saying in public” sounds unconvincingly naïve. Above all, it is unclear how such behaviour will help Cameron’s attempts to obtain the EU reforms he wants and needs.
The fierceness of his stance suggests that is an issue the PM cares deeply about, but it also shows that he is trying again to win the favour of his rebellious backbenchers. At the moment he counts on their support, but it will evaporate quicker than the foam on a cappuccino now that Juncker’s nomination has been confirmed. Cameron should know by now that every time he tries to appease the Eurosceptic wing of his party he weakens Britain’s position in Europe.
His 2009 decision to remove the Conservative Party from the European People’s Party (or EPP, the group in the European Parliament that assembles all the centre-right parties in Europe) had the effect of upsetting those – such as the German chancellor Angela Merkel – the PM depends on to deliver the reforms he needs to keep Britain in the EU. More importantly, he voted himself out of influencing European politics. The EPP brings together parties of government in Europe and as such it is an important network where a large amount of informal but important decisions are made. Had the Conservative Party been a member of that group, Cameron could have used backroom diplomacy to prevent Juncker from becoming the EPP’s “spitzenkandidaten” at their March meeting.
And now the prime minister’s European partners are beginning to show signs of impatience with the way he uses the threat of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU to obtain support for his agenda. Even Angela Merkel, who was already upset by his inability to prevent the German Eurosceptic party Alternative for Germany from joining the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the EP, told Cameron to stop making threats.
Not happy with upsetting Merkel, Cameron has also failed to build alliances with other member states. His only open supporter is the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban, who happens to be one of the most unpopular leaders in Europe. In fact, Britain’s stance appears to have strengthened Juncker’s position. As one Le Monde columnist said of Juncker: “The person who has as visceral opponents the British Eurosceptic David Cameron and the Hungarian ultra-nationalist Viktor Orban cannot be a bad guy.”
Cameron has also failed to keep an eye on the macro trends dominating European politics. Had he watched the European radar he would have known that reviving the old battles between federalists and intergovernmentalists is not a top priority for most of his European colleagues. EU arrangements have changed since the Lisbon Treaty and as a result the EPP’s alleged “power grab” was widely anticipated. Above all, most European leaders have little appetite for new treaty changes and want to focus instead on finding solutions for the Eurozone crisis, on which the future of the EU depends. It is precisely this endgame that explains Juncker’s nomination.
Eight centre-left European heads of government – including François Hollande and Matteo Renzi – officially backed the appointment of the Luxembourger in the hope that he will support the loosening of the Stability and Growth Pact rules and gently steer Europe away from austerity. As for Angela Merkel, she may sympathise with Cameron’s stance, but it was always highly unlikely that she would block a candidate that was overwhelmingly supported by her party and by her social-democratic coalition partner, Sigmar Gabriel.
The only hope for Cameron is that the appointment of Juncker may result in some concessions – as a consolation prize – in the negotiation of Britain’s terms of EU membership. In the meantime he might consider the virtues of masterly inactivity. In European politics it often brings better, if quieter, results. 
A version of this article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1iOlw7f
_________________________________
Eunice Goes – Richmond University
Eunice Goes is an Associate Professor at Richmond University. Her research looks at political parties and ideologies and she is writing a book on the Labour Party under Ed Miliband. Contact: eunice.goes@richmond.ac.uk
I think Cameron has done all uk residents a favour. He has shown that he will not be able to change the EU from the inside as he keeps saying he will do. This will cause more people to go with Farage.
The EU is a con trick to enable a few elite to control the majority. They profess that the EU will stop wars but in fact tensions are building which eventually spill over into violence.
The tensions are showing on our streets with the number of homeless and jobless caused by overloading previously stable communities with uncontrollable immigration.
The EU will not work in the long term because the personalities controling the EU cannot even get their own house in order as the unaudited budget shows. Well done Cameron. One step closer to BREXIT
You are totally correct about Cameron’s tactics, this was the wrong fight fought in the wrong way , it would have been far better to have let Juncker be nominated and saved the arguments for the EU agenda and Commission posts, which was alwayscgoingbto be the real battle.
Where I disagree with you find the idea that if Caneron had stayed in the EPP he could have stopped Juncker’s nomination, Labour opposed Schulz’s candidacy yet the Socialist group still nominated him. In the short term this will inflame British Euroscepticism, the root cause of the rise of UKIP was Gordon Brown reneging on a commitment to have a referendum on the Constitution/Lisbon which is the basis for the SK process. Medium term Cameron will probably be voted out next year and Miliband will not have a referendum so the Eurosceptics will be left to rage impotently, the question is what happens when the Conservatives eventually regain power as they will probably be even more virulently Eurosceptic.
The Eurosceptics might not be left to rage impotently. There is too much bad news in the pipeline between now and the coming election. Farage can sit back and continue to state the obvious as event happen as he did today re Cameron’s humiliation. Then there is the city where a lot of real powere is. Those greedy people will almost certainly use their money to sway the populace because the EU rules are hurting them where it really hurts; their profits. Walk the streets and talk to the people. They are now waking up to the harm that has been done by EU regulation and uncontrolled immigration. Interesting times!
you’re wrong about a crucial thing — a Brexit is the last thing people from the City want. The EU still is (and it won’t change with Juncker) prominently neoliberal; and the Common Market is the closest thing to heaven for a trader/businessman.
People in Europe are tired of back-room politics and non-transparent deals. I disagree with Mr. Cameron in many areas but I do give him this. You can’t reform Europe by saying one thing in private and another in public. It is time that citizens corporations and politicians to say what they will do and do what they say. Transparently. Without transparency there is no trust and certainly no credibility.
A great overview of the situation. No 10’s line that other national leaders have doubts, and Cameron’s dependence on Merkel, shows that they focus too much on other national leaders themselves, instead of thinking about their own domestic political forces. I also doubt Cameron is doing much to build support day-to-day apart from these occasional (badly run) campaigns – the more the UK works together with others, the more its allies realise the value of working with the UK, and the more they’re likely to work to help keep the UK in by supporting renegotiations.
I find the argument that the Spitzenkadidaten process was a “back-room deal” baffling – it’s a strange kind of back-room deal where the candidates are announced publicly months in advance of the elections. Cameron is the one that wanted to return to the smoke-filled back-room deals!
THANK YOU! Exactly.
I find it highly ironic – even ridiculous – that many Brits find the Spitzenkandidaten process undemocratic… when it’s the very process used to (indirectly) elect a British PM.
I enjoyed your analysis. Still, I think you do not grasp David Cameron’s argument, which he couched in diplomatic language, precisely so as not to offend.
In dismissing Jean-Claude Juncker’s candidacy for European Commission President, Cameron had said, in effect, that Jean-Claude Juncker had steered the Eurozone into its current mess. He should not now be promoted to head of the entire European Union.
The British understand that the Eurozone crisis has arisen because Jean-Claude Juncker, Gordon Brown and Jose Manuel Barroso backed Germany and France when they violated the conditions of the Stability and Growth Pact in 2004. This set a precedent.
Between 2004 and 2010, Eurozone countries were given free reign by the Barroso administration to run up massive budget deficits. This was so that the Commission would not be accused of treating the Eurozone Peripheral Nations (Ireland, Portugal) differently from the Core Nations (Germany, France).
Interestingly, it was German chancellor Merkel and French President Sarkozy who called time on Greek government deficit spending in 2010, forcing Greek government Bond holders to write off half the value of 110 billion Euros worth of Greek Bonds. This massive loss of wealth by holders of Greek debt should not be conveniently forgotten.
Merkel called time on Cyprus Government deficit spending in March 2013, citing the fact that the Cyprus banking sector had grown to eight times the size of the island’s economy. Jean-Claude Juncker has overseen the expansion of Luxembourg’s banking sector to twenty four times annual GDP.
David Cameron clearly sees that the 18-member Eurozone has become the tail that wags the 28-nation European Union. Jean-Claude Juncker’s appointment simply confirms this.
Seeing as the United Kingdom has opted out of the Euro, what is the point in going forward with a failed project? Cameron (and Farage and Le Pen) would seem to be throwing in their lot with the 29 million Europeans who are currently unemployed. I do not believe that can be such a bad thing.