Physics-free David Miliband:

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 fascinating thing about Sir David Manning’s evidence today to the Chilcot Inquiry is this passage describing his visit to Washington with a note from PM Balir to President Bush:

Manning had a note with him, from Blair to Bush, about Iraq. The note made it clear that Britain would only participate as part of a coalition involving the UN.

The following morning Manning was expecting a session with Rice in her office. But, to his surprise, he was asked to go to see Bush instead. They had half an hour or 40 minutes in the Oval Office.

Bush had studied Blair’s note and he had been briefed by Rice about their conversation. He repeated that it was "impossible" for the UK to take part in action against Iraq unless it was through the UN. "That was our preference; but it was also the [political] reality."

The whole testimony describes in fascinating detail all sorts of exchanges going on at the top level in world politics between the UK and the USA. It also shows the UK influencing the American leadership in numerous significant respects.

Does anyone out there really think that an adviser to Baroness Ashton, looking over her shoulder at keeping happy an unwieldy group of 27 countries, some with lumpen anti-American governments and few of them able to keep anything secret, is going to be able to get in to see a US President for a private meeting?

And if not, does that make the EU a multiplier of UK foreign policy? Or the UK a multiplier of European influence?

Come on, Europhiles.

Tell us.

Note: there is an argument that we should have stayed at home and minded our own business, leading to a better outcome for the UK overall. I have no problem with that in principle – at least it is consistent.

But if we have an elected leader who weighs up all the facts and decides that it is better to be involved in such a policy (and indeed is re-elected by a clear majority after the intervention), how else to do it other than by this sort of subtle and effective diplomacy?

Memo to Chilcot Inquiry: please ask how far the memos of all these meetings were being distributed around Whitehall and at what level. How many of those who saw them raised significant objections to the policy by putting their own names/jobs on the line? A key operational point as we see this cavalcade of senior diplomats now unloading their lofty angst at PM Blair’s expense.