Europe

The news that Nicolas Sarkozy has cancelled a proposed flying visit to London, in order to smooth over the fall out from his attack on the City, has got tongues wagging. Adam Boulton reports: ‘It's claimed Sarkozy asked for this week's meeting to patch things up. So by implication their (his Westminster sources) argument goes - if it isn't happening it’s because Brown is snubbing Sarko and not the other way round.’ This line doesn't convince. According to the Elysee's diary, Sarkozy is otherwise engaged tomorrow, so the finance cordiale will now take place at…wait for it… the European Council meeting in Brussels next week. Why would Brown give away a vital meeting on home soil in favour of one held during the Franco-German Euro-circus?

The Times’ Ian King writes that Dubai’s predicament presents an opportunity for the City to attract new business. There is no reason why, with attractive incentives, London shouldn’t capitalise on Sheik Mohammed’s momentary lapse of reason. However, the appointment of Michel Barnier, an evangelical protectionist who makes Joseph Chamberlain look like the father of Free Trade, as EU regulating supremo is a disaster for Britain. The appointment raises further questions about Gordon Brown’s acceptance of Baroness Ashton as the EU’s foreign minister. Michael Fallon is no doubt: “Brown has been completely outwitted. We now have none of the three key economic jobs in Brussels.

To my eyes, there's more than a little dose of mischief in Peter Mandelson's article for the FT today.  Discussing the recent EU jobs grab, he seems to suggest that the new economic and financial commissioners may have a more important role to play than either Herman Van Rompuy or Lady Ashton, the EU’s president and high representative, respectively: "Some commentators felt that the EU’s choices for its new president and high representative for foreign affairs lacked this kind of continental ambition. Herman Van Rompuy and Lady Ashton will no doubt aim to prove them wrong. But Europe’s dilemma is not just one of influence projection. Europe’s influence will inevitably be tied to its economic strength.

The success or failure of Cameron’s EU policy rests in part on the promised British Bill of Rights. What is clear is that Tories are unclear what should be included in it. One question that is yet to be answered is whether aspects of the constitution should be entrenched? Writing on the Blue Blog today, Michael Howard writes: 'Any decision about these rights requires a balancing of competing rights. The fundamental question is who should be responsible for striking that balance: elected MP’s or unelected judges? On terrorism, Parliament twice, after great debate, reached its view. Yet twice the judges have held that Parliament got it wrong.

Today's Times carries a cracking account of all the wheeling and dealing that went on during the EU jobs fair this week.  Here are some of the most striking points that I've culled from it: i) Brown rejected advice from Mandelson and other ministers that he should try and secure one of the EU's financial roles for a British candidate. ii) There are claims that Brown was "persuaded" into accepting the EU High Representative role for Britain by Europe's Socialist leaders along with José Manuel Barroso. iii) There are also claims that Brown did a deal with the French to get Baroness Ashton appointed, by which a French MEP, Michel Barnier, would be appointed the Commissioner in charge of the internal market and financial services.

Two Labour figures, two bad news stories.  The first is Tony Blair, and the news that he has given up on the role of EU President – leaving the path more or less clear for the Belgian PM, Herman Van Rompuy.  The second is Harriet Harman, and the news that she faces prosecution for allegedly "driving without due care and attention and driving while using a mobile phone." The Blair story is significant enough on its own – but throw in Harman, and it's doubly certain that Brown's legislative programme will be shunted right off the news agenda.  But isn't that a good thing for Labour, you might ask, given the kicking the Queen's Speech was subjected to in this morning's press?  Well, perhaps.

The process to pick the two new EU jobs - that of Council President and High Representative - is nearing completion and Britain looks set to walk away empty-handed. Tony Blair's candidacy is unacceptable to many EU leaders - both because of his record, particularly over the Iraq War, and because of Britain's odd-man status in Europe. Last night at the Queen's Diplomatic Reception, a senior ambassador remarked to me that if Blair had really wanted the EU job, he should have started lobbying for it a few years ago - or at least shown a post-No 10 interest in European affairs. Blair, said the envoy, could have given a speech in Berlin, an interview in a French paper and so on. But he did not.

David Miliband’s decision not to be a candidate for EU Foreign Minister has inspired an almost vociferous article from Daniel Finkelstein. He writes: ‘The Lisbon treaty is your work as much as anyone’s. You pushed it through and you told everyone that it really mattered. You’ve been making speeches on the importance of the new job as EU foreign minister. You’ve said it is an essential tool of influence. Yet now — now — you tell me that you don’t actually want to do it yourself.’ Clearly Miliband wants a crack at the leadership, and the thrust of Finkelstein’s argument is that Miliband isn’t up to leading the opposition. ‘One other thing you need to think about.