We recently considered the proposition that the European Union is a vital and valuable ‘multiplier’ for British foreign policy. And found it not altogether accurate.

Here is the definitive argument in favour of it, delivered in a high-profile speech by Foreign Secretary David Miliband and winning a gushing review from the Indy:

David Miliband yesterday delivered the kind of speech that is too seldom heard in British politics; a speech that made a strong and unambiguous case for a greater role for the European Union on the global stage. As the Foreign Secretary argued, it is in Britain's "national interest" to see the EU develop a strong foreign policy.

It was a forward-looking analysis. In a future that will be dominated by the two economic giants of China and the United States, relatively small nations such as Britain will struggle to be heard on their own. The institutions of Europe provide us with a potential megaphone. Britain would also benefit from the existence of an EU that punches its weight when it comes to preventing nuclear proliferation, dealing with Russia or confronting rogue states.

David Miliband:

… our European alliance is unlike any other. We share sovereignty in key areas. We cooperate across the full range of policy issues. And Europe is our continent. The idea that the UK can maintain its influence in Beijing or Washington or Delhi or Moscow if we marginalise ourselves in Europe is frankly fanciful.  In fact I would say the opposite; through leadership in Europe we augment our bilateral ties with other countries. Alone, we may be interesting; leading a group of 27 in common values and purpose, we have real sway…

The truth is that there is a deception at the heart of Conservative policy.  A deception of the country that you can hate Europe as it exists today and remain central to European policy making.  In fact, a failed attempt to renegotiate aspects of the European Union that the Conservative Party does not like will lead inevitably to more calls for Britain to leave the European Union. The fact that one third of Conservative candidates support such a position of withdrawal is testimony to the way the Tory wind is blowing.

The problem with this sort of thing is that it is really propaganda, not analysis.

So let’s get this one nailed, once and for all.

* * * * *

What makes any policy successful?

The answer lies in physics (scary, but true). The formula for kinetic energy is thus:

  E_K = (1/2)mv²

 

E_K = Kinetic Energy

m = Mass

v = Velocity

 

This shows why tank shells are small and very fast: you get exponential increases by increasing velocity, not if you increase mass.

 

Bomb X:         0.5kg travelling at 1000m/second

E_K =                0.25 x 1000 x 1000 = 250,000 Joules

 

Bomb Y:         1kg travelling at 1000m/second

E_K =                0.5 x 1000 x 1000 = 500,000 Joules

 

Bomb Z:          0.5kg travelling at 3000m/second

E_K =                0.25 x 3000 x 3000 = 2.25m Joules

 

And why reducing Velocity significantly diminishes Impact, even with a lot more Mass:

 

Bomb EU:         2.0 kg travelling at 200m/second

E_K =                1.0 x 200 x 200 = 40,000 Joules

(ie far less than the impact of smaller, faster Bomb X)

 

The Impact of anything moving, including Policy, has a lot to do with the relationship between its Mass and Velocity.

 

The key point about an EU Foreign Policy is that it certainly adds heavy Mass (lots of countries intoning the same thing), but it significantly reduces Velocity (ie the speed with which positions are formulated and then the nimbleness of actual real-life responses and associated resources deployments).

 

The result is uncertain and often much reduced Impact.

 

Which in part explains why the EU coordination processes at the UN are so gormless that even EU fans are worried.

 

The other core point ignored by Mr Miliband is that energetic national policies work because they are authentic. He seems to be saying that European nations are doomed to be ineffectual unless they pull together. This is simply not true. Or at least not necessarily true.

 

Countries like China, Russia, Brazil and India have weight because they are not part of any sovereignty-diluting wider formation. See also the case of Norway, which shows just what can be done by using diplomatic fleetness of foot and a pile of money to make a difference here and there.

 

And look at this story of France and Brazil together defining a position on a Climate Change issue. France strides ahead and in its quintessentially French way asserts a global leadership role, all the more impressive because it is solely ‘French’ and not laden down with weasel wordy compromises needed to suit each and every EU country which wants to stick an oar in.

 

See also President Sarkozy in 2008 noisily proclaiming victory in Georgia by cutting a ‘peace’ deal with Moscow on behalf of the EU which did not involve Russian troops withdrawing fully from Georgia’s territory. A great result for France/Russia – an awful one for the EU/Georgia.

 

That’s how a country uses EU weight as a ‘multiplier’ for its own interests – by being assertive and single-minded and largely ignoring the positions of many other EU member states. Look also at how Greece has used its EU membership to blackmail other member states including the UK into not accepting the name which Macedonia wants to use to describe itself.

 

Not exactly the sort of multiplier examples Mr Miliband had in mind?

 

Why did not Mr Miliband also be honest and offer us some examples of the damaging if not ruinous downside of EU coordination? Such as:

 

• The debacle at the UN Human Rights Council in October where the UK and (yes) France manoeuvred themselves into a pitiful no-show. To be fair, other EU countries on the Council (Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia ) did actually manage to vote against a one-sided Gaza/Israel resolution, so maybe this was down to sheer UK/French incompetence on the day?

 

• The fact that the EU has no policy at all on Cuba (since the EU in effect has outsourced its Latin America policy to socialist-led Spain) and a dopey one on Honduras

 

• The EU’s on/off policy of engagement (or not) with Belarus

 

• The startling sums of EU money wasted on ‘development’ in Africa with no serious way to include meaningful political conditionality

 

• The fact that even where issues involving Europe itself are concerned, the EU can not come up with a united policy – see recognition of Kosovo. (That example of course also might be said to show the unwisdom of the UK pushing ahead with key allies without working up a coherent EU joint position first?)

NB There are policy areas where Mass is better than Velocity. Such as the laborious rolling out of democratic processes to former Communist Europe.

 

Here (Ukraine, Belarus and other CIS countries) the sheer weight and tedium of EU process is the best weapon we have to grind down the resistance of post-KGB structures aimed at maintaining Russia’s psychological and operational control. It took decades for Communism to do so much damage. It has to take decades to repair the damage. Velocity counts for a lot less here.

 

But in many other areas, including most issues which fall for UN votes, the lack of Velocity brought about by EU wittering is a serious handicap.

 

In the UN Security Council permanent membership status of the UK and France the European Union has a tremendous asset. It would be far better for ‘Europe’ and European values if the EU just let the UK and France get on with it and simply endorsed whatever positions they thought made sense, rather than trying to ‘coordinate’ policy to suit every footling point of view and thereby just wasting UK/French time and resources to no useful end.

 

Put it another way: the opportunity cost of UK diplomats wearily haggling with EU partners over meaningless texts aimed at achieving ‘common positions’ is the time (and credibility) lost in not engaging hard with the emerging powers in the world on hard substance.

 

Outcomes in EU processes all too often mean dumbed down analysis and effort. We professionals all know this. It is not honest of David Miliband not to acknowledge this openly.

 

David Miliband makes a final ritual swipe at the Conservatives for their supposedly anti-European approach. Zzzzz.

 

But who systematically stripped from UK foreign policy-making most of the available resources by creating DFID, thereby reducing our policy impact in and with Brussels (“The worst decision we ever made” – R Cook)? Labour.

 

Who has wrecked European language learning in UK schools? Labour.

 

Who made a clueless attempt  a few years back to set up a bossy UK/France/Germany 'EU Trilateralism' which promptly crashed since they did not have the nerve to follow it through? Labour.

 

Who scaled back the UK’s EU Fast Steam scheme for civil servants, sharply reducing the number of smart UK officials getting good jobs in Brussels? Labour.

 

Who made concessions on the UK Rebate – and got nothing in return? Labour.

 

* * * * *

 

Let’s not pretend that all this is easy, or that point-scoring sloganising one way or the other helps.

 

I hope that William Hague becomes Foreign Secretary and (a) reboots the foreign policy process in London so debauched by Labour, and as part of that, (b) throws British weight about more assertively within the EU and at the UN.

 

Labour will have a hissy fit, wailing from the margins that the UK is ‘isolated’. Well, on some things such us upholding principles of honesty and democracy in the UN Human Rights Council it is better to be isolated if everyone else is looking in other, darker directions.

 

One good way to proceed will be to start by asserting a new UK approach to EU coordination at the UN. Namely that it will be much reduced in practice, and largely limited to working closely with France and Germany and any other EU country with immediate influence on the issue in hand, so as to focus not on limp process but on tough outcomes which are better for Europe.

 

Having established that new firm approach at the very top, the way will be clear to streamline a businesslike working relationship with the new EU High Representative, based on the UK telling him what positions the UK plans to take then working out how best to swing most EU opinion behind it.

 

In short?

 

A lot of nonsense is talked about the UK ‘punching above its weight’.

 

What the EU does is oblige us to punch below our weight, as part of its own flabby and disorganised weight.

 

And, as the iron laws of physics tell us, more Mass but much reduced Velocity = Less Impact.