Jonathan Todd

Philip Stephens has previously written in the FT that “Turkey has turned east as Europe clings to the past“. Today Gideon Rachman writes in the FT:

“It was Ukraine’s misfortune that the Orange Revolution took place just as the European Union was succumbing to “enlargement fatigue” – following the shock of moving from 12 members in 1995 to 27 members today. As a result, the EU has given Ukraine an almost criminal lack of encouragement, as the country attempts to secure simultaneously its independence, its democracy and its prosperity. Everybody knows that actually joining the Union is a long and arduous process – since it involves transforming the laws and economies of the applicant countries. But it would have cost the EU very little to give Ukraine the encouragement of holding out the prospect of eventual membership.”

While Turkey probably also remains “a long and arduous process” away from EU membership, Turkey has been knocking on the EU’s door for decades. This article in Newsweek suggests that they got tired of getting no answer and focused instead on becoming a dominant player in the Middle East.

The transformation of central and eastern Europe that the EU encouraged by opening itself up to membership from post-Communist states is one of its great successes. So, it is all the more sad to witness the consequences of the present “enlargement fatigue”. We all know – most especially people in states like Turkey and Ukraine – that EU membership for many of the states that border the EU remains, for better or for worse, a long way away. Nonetheless, the EU should still be capable of acting as a stronger magnet to these states than it has been in recent years. The carrot doesn’t have to be as big as full membership in short order. But it has to be substantial enough to retain the interest of these states. Otherwise, they will drift away towards other centres of power (the incoming Ukrainian president is notoriously close to Moscow and the Turkish president describes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as his “good friend”). The ‘soft power’ of all EU states is all the weaker as a result.

“The best books … are those that tell you what you know already”, wrote George Orwell in 1984. While, pace the likes of Henry Porter, our country isn’t Orwellian, there is a lot of truth in this line. And so it was when I read Martin Wolf on Iceland last week. He powerfully and intelligently argues for that which I have always instinctively felt about events there.

The British and Dutch governments are seeking agreement with the Icelandic government for the repayment of debts, which now amount to 50% of Icelandic GDP, owed to British and Dutch savers in now collapsed Icelandic banks. If we attempt to see things from the Icelandic perspective, this observation from Wolf is particularly striking: “In the UK context, this would be equivalent to a demand for £700bn. It is not hard to imagine how far Mr Brown would get with a suggestion that the UK should accept such a debt to refund depositors in foreign branches of bankrupt UK banks.”

We most probably do not have to fear the rise of Nazism in Iceland, (though, Icelanders do have unnecessary misery and Brits needlessly lost goodwill to fear), but Wolf’s analysis seems as persuasive and prescient as J. M. Keynes’ The Economic Consequences of the Peace proved to be on the Versailles Conference.

“Do Iceland’s taxpayers have a moral obligation to pay this loan? My view is: no. The delusion that finance was the path to riches was propounded by countries that should have known far better. I cannot blame Icelanders for succumbing. I certainly do not want generations of Icelanders to bear the cost.”

Iceland has many things going for it. However, not so many that more measured approaches from the British and Dutch governments could not considerably improve the prospects of Icelanders for many years to come.

“The final and, in truth, most important question is whether these demands are reasonable. After all, in every civilised country it has long been accepted that there is a limit to the pursuit of any debts. That is why we have introduced limited liability and abolished debtors’ prisons. Asking a people to transfer as much as 50 per cent of GDP, plus interest, via a sustained current account surplus is extraordinarily onerous.”

Not only is it extraordinarily onerous but it is only justified if we accept that several generations or more of Icelanders should pay the full price for the follies of a small Icelandic elite. What would the likes of the Labour Party argue in similar circumstances in the UK? Surely, we’d argue in favour of the many and not the few? So, why should we think any differently about an event in Iceland?

Let’s take a deep breath, step back and extend a modicum of decency to a fundamentally decent people, who, incidentally, were amongst the first to get aid to Haiti this week. If Icelanders can do the right thing by Haiti, Brits can do the right thing by Iceland.

Given that the Guardian now report that David “Cameron faces Eurosceptic backlash after Czech Lisbon treaty decision”, it seems an apt moment to revisit this question: ”Could UKIP still save the day for Labour?”

Perhaps confounding expectations of what the Spectator would be like with Fraser Nelson as editor, James Forsyth at Coffee House has been quick to man the trenches on Cameron’s behalf and insist he “hasn’t broken a pledge on Europe”. Such activity from someone, who is, among “the leading commentators”, according to Danny Finkelstein, to well “understand what the Cameron team are trying to do” might suggest that this team is worried that UKIP could indeed save the day for Labour.

I’m doubtful that Nigel Farage and co have it in them to save Labour’s speck (at least any more than the BNP have the potential to steal this same bacon by similarly undercutting the vote of one of the major parties). But, certainly, it is in Labour’s interests to widen and magnify the divisions that obviously linger within the Tory Party on Europe.

Ah, a dividing line, Number 10 surely cries. But I hope it doesn’t. As I have argued elsewhere, Labour needs to be more realistic about our capacity to impact perceptions of the Tories. Essentially, our capacity in this regard is almost zero. Instead of trying to mine this very limited potential, we should be focusing on changing perceptions of ourselves; presenting a positive case for Labour. This argument holds on Europe as much as it does on other areas of policy. So, rather than any ”clever” tactical games, I suggest that Labour makes a positive case for the EU and for our position on the Lisbon Treaty and the future of the EU, while hoping that the snipping of Bill Cash et al opens up the divisions within the Tories that any ”clever” tactical games would seek to achieve and, in so doing, pushes some Tory voters in the direction of UKIP.

It might seem madness (even suicidal) to attempt to present a positive case for the EU and Lisbon Treaty in the UK at the moment. But, first, a more negative politics of dividing lines ignores the reality of our ability to impact perceptions of the Tories. David Aaronovitch’s ability in this regard is probably now stronger than the whole of the Cabinet’s combined. Second, part of the reason that this seems madness is because the dots between the Lisbon Treaty and our national interest remain so un-joined. Take, for example, Daniel Korski’s well-made argument today: ”Europe has the US president it wished for, but Barack Obama lacks the strong transatlantic partner he desired.” This is profoundly true and it is manifestly in the UK’s interest that the EU becomes this strong transatlantic partner. It is far more likely to be able to perform such a role once the improvements to its systems of governance enabled by the Lisbon Treaty are in place.

Labour should make arguments of this kind; arguments that are global and universal in focus, as we leave Cameron and Cash to petty and parochial arguments (Cameron and Cash even sounds suitably like a petty and parachial firm of solictors). Combining UKIP with an enlightened and far-sighted approach from Labour could yet save the day.

It is difficult to overstate the strategic importance to the EU of Turkey. So, a sense of regret and concern should be felt across the union when Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Prime Minister, says of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s Holocaust denying President, that “there is no doubt he is our friend.” But Europe has not been awash with such sentiment in recent days because, as Philip Stephens argues, Europe has clung to the past as Turkey has turned east.

Must Europe wither? It surely shall if we do not wake up and smell the coffee and move on from the navel gazing and introversion that have marked recent years. Tony Blair suggested three years ago that the big distinction in politics was between open societies and those which were closed. “If you take any of the big motivating debates in politics today”, argued Blair, “each essentially has, at its core, this question: ‘Do we open up? Albeit with rules and controls, or do we hunker down, do we close ourselves off and wait till the danger has passed? Is globalisation a threat or an opportunity?’” The EU has chosen to hunker down, to close itself off, not just to Turkey but to a world that is hurtling towards a G2 in which there is no place at the top table for Europeans.

British pro-Europeans, like Nick Clegg, must have watched these developments with horror and wished that the EU could turn itself around and open itself up. The conclusion of the Lisbon process offers a great opportunity for this and Blair’s candidacy for the EU presidency offers the leadership and gravitas necessary to achieve this. Even his advocates, such as Charles Grant and Will Hutton, do not fail to find fault with Blair. Yet “the message” Grant hears “in places such as Beijing, Delhi and Washington is that if the EU wants to be taken seriously, it should choose a big name as president”. Is there another big name candidate? No. Thus, the choice is to be closed (and deride Blair as a ‘superstar’ unworthy of support as Clegg did today) or open (and go for Blair precisely because he is a superstar in the capitals that now matter most).

It is not just a betrayal of Clegg’s pro-European credentials for him to fail to back Blair, it is an abdication of his profession. Politics exists, after all, as J. K. Galbraith knew, “in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable”. Clegg may find Blair unpalatable; so do Grant and Hutton, to some extent. But Turkey getting into bed with Iran is the first of many disasters that shall befall the EU if it continues on its current trajectory. It is because Grant and Hutton have retained the ability, unlike Clegg, to distinguish between the unpalatable and the disastrous that they are able to bring themselves to support Blair.