The stealthy rise of the ‘monster’ of Brussels shows why we must leave
As the federalists tighten their grip, the prospects for positive EU reform have never looked bleaker
It was the perfect coup. Until recently, no one imagined that Martin Selmayr had any ambitions to run the European Union civil service – or that such a job could be used as a political power base. When he was named as Eurocrat-in-chief, two days ago, his enemies were astonished. He had not been on any shortlist; they had no time to organise against him. But the most ambitious man in Brussels – nicknamed “Rasputin,” “the monster” and worse – will soon be in charge of the whole machine with its 32,000 staff. As one EU official put it: “He takes all the power – completely.”
The internal politics of Brussels are intended to be hypnotically tedious. But the rise of Mr Selmayr, 47-year-old chief-of-staff to Jean-claude Juncker, matters because he offers a perfect example of what Brussels is becoming. He is a brilliant, workaholic German who specialises in outmanoeuvring opponents. He’s a former lawyer who has never stood for election, but influences power through the people he serves. He has a clear vision of the EU: as a top-down machine, with strong political direction.
To work out why his ascendancy is important you have to go back to a dinner between David Cameron and Mark Rutte, his Dutch counterpart, in Chequers, four years ago. Both believed that the EU had to reform to survive and Mr Rutte had a plan. National parliaments would be given power to veto EU directives they didn’t like. There would be a new mantra: Europe would only do what only Europe can do (no more meddling). So: less interference, less spending, fewer diktats, more democracy. Brussels would be put back in its box.
I met Mr Rutte at the time and he was very optimistic. After all, he said, is there really an alternative? Didn’t everyone agree that the EU needed to be dialled back and wasn’t there something uneuropean about seeking to foist uniformity on the most diverse continent on earth? No prime minister relished the idea of trying to beat back the EU machine, but most of them were facing trouble at home from Eurosceptic populists. So it was time to revert back to the original plan: a union of free, sovereign states.
But this liberal vision of Europe
– the one that I believed in for so long – has been comprehensively defeated. Mr Cameron found out the hard way that the EU is incapable of serious change. There are too many bickering, veto-wielding member states – and, in Brussels, too many well-organised federalists hard at work.
Perhaps Mr Selmayr’s greatest achievement was manoeuvring Mr Juncker into the top job, on the dubious pretext that the president of the European Commission should be nominated by the European Parliament. This, the so-called Spitzenkandidat system, was a classic example of a reform that sounds tedious but has a revolutionary effect. From that point, the Commission has not been the servant of its member states but of those devoted to the European project. The answer to every problem was always going to be: more Europe.
Reform-minded Europhiles, like me, should have realised the game was up. Time after time there was talk of change – yet the power only ever flowed from governments to Brussels. To many, this was what the referendum was about: whether the EU was heading in the wrong direction, if it would ever reform – and, if not, whether it was best to leave now.
Almost all EU reforms since the referendum have been in the wrong direction. Nation states are losing control, federalists are winning. The idea of an EU army, for example, was dismissed as fanciful during the referendum. Now it’s firmly on the cards, with Mr Juncker talking about “common military assets” owned by the EU. We have seen plans for an Eu-wide tax on financial transactions, and even the Irish might be ordered to give up their low corporation tax and huddle closer to Brussels.
Perhaps the worst of it has been the political instability: as the EU’S intransigence intensifies, so does the backlash. Marine Le Pen took a third of the vote in France’s presidential election and AFD look set to become the main opposition in Germany: two facts that should appal anyone who cares about stability in Europe. The prospects for real reform in Brussels have never looked bleaker.
The never-ending stitch-ups are becoming a source of dark humour. One group of MEPS has offered sarcastic congratulations to Mr Selmayr for winning the “open and fair competition” to become Eurocrat-inchief. Some have gone further. Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s former finance minister, once said that the difference between Mr Selmayr and God is that “God knows he’s not Selmayr”. For his own part, Mr Selmayr revels in such notoriety, describing himself as “the bad guy”. If no one’s electing you, it doesn’t matter how many people don’t like you.
Mr Rutte was back in London this week, visiting Theresa May. He still talks about reforming Europe, but without Britain it is a lost cause. The Hungarians are the latest to say they will shake things up in Brussels, helped by the Poles, Czechs and Slovaks. The optimism of the so-called Visegrád Four is almost touching: Britain spent decades pushing for change, and entertaining the delusion that we could shape, even lead, Europe. Meanwhile the EU machine has gone on acquiring ever-more power, and its democratic deficit is now embodied by Mr Selmayr’s extraordinary rise.
This won’t make Brexit any easier. Mr Selmayr is no fan of the British, and is seen to be behind the decision to send the caustic Michel Barnier to handle the talks. This shocked many in Brussels: one EU Commissioner told me at the time that this was a baffling declaration of hostility, given Mr Barnier’s reputation for needling Britain. Kristalina Georgieva, who recently quit as a vice president, says she made up her mind to resign when he was appointed. The Junckerselmayr duumvirate, she said, had become “poisonous”.
The Brexit discussion in Britain now is all about “managed withdrawals” and the other technicalities. What is the point of leaving, ask some Tories, if we don’t get freedom to cut a certain deal at a certain time? The point is that, after Brexit, we won’t be part of this system. We can watch from a distance, even wish Mr Selmayr well. And remind ourselves what we won’t miss.