Sikorski on European integration

Jon Worth asks why Radek Sikorski’s speech about the EU has been ignored. Why wouldn’t it be?

Sikorski’s latest effusion is not really a contribution to any debate about the EU, but a ritual performance of Europeanism which should be counted alongside the secular hagiography of Spinelli, Charlemagne, etc undertaken by the likes of Chris Patten. It is motivated by an ambition to be thought of as strongly pro-EU by Eurocrats, in the hope of receiving some honour or sinecure from them, not as a practical proposal to effect actual change in our constitutional arrangements.

If you could bear reading this far, you should follow me on Twitter:

2 thoughts on “Sikorski on European integration

  1. I don’t think your parallel holds. Or at least if it does, then I do not know how international politics is supposed to work in future.

    If Sikorski were an academic or a Commissioner, or some ex-politician eminence grise then you would have a point. But no, he is the foreign minister, in office, of a major European country, and he has gone out of his way to criticise the UK. Whether you think his critique is valid is another matter, but as a matter of bilateral relations I think it merits coverage.

    Now you may say, OK, the whole old bilateral, foreign ministers thing is outdated now anyway, but if it is so, and you argue for a post-Nation State politics, then… where do you end up?

  2. I’m not going to concede that “international politics” should exist, let alone work, but I’ll certainly grant that cross-border rent-seeking exists. I also avoid saying “a […] politics”.

    As to the coverage, yes, a generally pro-US/ pro-UK Polish foreign minister criticises the UK, but he makes the same false arguments (at least in the mythbusting section) as are made in the standard Europhile playbook. A liar lying to support an evil foreign regime is not news.