mark #FBPE rejoin 🇪🇺🇬🇧 #3.5%

Old enough to remember the debates around the Constitution/Lisbon treaty on the need for European "foreign minister"? The position ended up called the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, i.e. the EU's foreign minister. Since the treaty came into force in 2009, that has been the stated function of the High Rep. If you remember that, you will also remember all the self-congratulatory back-slapping over how "Europe *finally* has an answer to Henry Kissinger's If I want to call Europe, who(m) do I call?" European Presidents and Prime Ministers, the "head of state and government" haven't really wanted anyone usurping the possibility of getting that phone call from whomever is the day's Henry Kissinger. Nor have they been willing to give up the prospect of grandstanding and playing statesmen on the world stage. Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron all have relished the headlines and attention they garnered outside their own countries. Smaller member state leaders have tried as well. So since establishing the foreign minister position, heads of state and government proceeded to appoint High Representatives for Foreign and Security Policy who have not ever held the highest office of a member state. Better to pick someone from a lesser background. This way there would no competition. Thus, we first got Labourite foreign policy novice Cathy Ashton, whose previous claim to prominence was as the treasurer of the UK's Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. Followed by the hardly more competent, but certainly more arrogant and partisan young socialist and short term Italian foreign minister,Federica Mogherini, who in her subsequent sinecure heading the College of Europe, ended up accused of corruption. She in turn was followed by the hapless socialist Josep Borrell, primarily remembered for comiserating with Sergei Lavrov over the US' policies toward Cuba. Neither Mogherini nor Borrell ,however, never took a leading role in the EU over Russia's aggression in Ukraine. Nor, to be fair, did they know much about foreign policy and especially lacked any serious understanding of Russia. They both became known for expressing 50 shades of " grave concern" Kaja Kallas, in contrast to her predecessors, had been a Prime Minister when she was appointed, a colleague of most of the current heads of state and government in the EU Council. Also in contrast to her predecessors with a deep knowlege of both foreign policy and the history of Russian behaviour toward its European neighbors. It is especially galling to hear (always anonymous) comments from EU leaders complaining about Kallas, "She only cares about Russia" -- which for one, is untrue, but secondly: so what country besides Russia borders directly on *five* EU member states? What other country is waging a horrific genocidal war on a European country, Ukraine, which happens to border *four* EU member states? Any "top diplomat" of the EU who does not make that his or her biggest priority should be fired. Yet now we see EU leaders jockeying for position to be that one person to talk to Lavrov and to Putin. Fine. Never mind that It makes the European Union look silly and unserious. Never mind that it ignores the EU's own constitutional order. The point, howerver, is that, as the EU Lisbon Treaty sets out, the High Representative represents the EU in matters of foreign and security policy. Kaja Kallas is by our own rules, Rubio's and Lavrov's counterpart and proper interlocutor. Antonio Costa is the counterpart and interlocutor with Putin and Trump. If the EU's member states suppress their egos and repect the constitution each of their countries have ratified, the High Representative should be the one to run the EU's foreign policy.