William Hague has recently admirably said that he wants to see more British nationals working in the EU institutions. This may mean sacrificing some of the best and brightest working in the Foreign Office because the new European External Action Service (EEAS) will need to call upon the renowned experience, excellence and respected pragmatism of British diplomats, some of whom will be seconded to the EEAS.
Conservative MEPs were opposed in principle to the creation of the EEAS but now that it is a reality we can't continue to be churlish about it and we must move on. We must ensure that our country secures as much influence as possible in the EEAS, because we can be sure that other key powers will be trying to shape it in their own image. To do this, we need the most able and talented diplomats working in it.
I was surprised to read an article in the Daily Telegraph recently that discussed the salaries of senior EEAS staff. Douglas Carswell MP (who often makes valuable contributions to political debate) was quoted, arguing that that the fact that some senior EU diplomats will be paid more than the foreign secretary, who earns £134,565 a year, is an illustration of how the Lisbon treaty reduces Britain's sovereignty over foreign policy. He was quoted thus:
"The reason more than one hundred EU diplomats earn more than the British foreign secretary is because they have more say than him on foreign policy."
I was bewildered by the inference that a civil servant would be more powerful than a politician by virtue of being paid more. Take the example of the UK: dozens of public servants earn more than David Cameron but it is patently absurd to suggest that by virtue of their salaries they have more say than he does in running the country – especially since the PM personally appoints many of these people to their jobs and approves their salaries. Indeed, if salary or wealth was the only benchmark for influence and power the country would be run by footballers and pop stars, and Who's Who would look very different from its current composition.
The idea that EU diplomats have more say than William Hague on the Union's foreign policy is also deeply misguided. Despite the moves towards ever closer union represented by the Lisbon treaty, foreign policy still remains fundamentally the preserve of national governments. Britain, as one of the 'big three', is well placed to influence the course of the EU's developing foreign policy, and is always entitled to veto EU CFSP positions not to its liking.
It is true that senior civil servants in the EU institutions have very attractive salaries (in fact, even relatively junior officials in the European Parliament take home more than MEPs, who in addition also pay the higher UK tax rates). However, the salaries of senior EEAS staff are typical for senior civil servants in Britain and other major developed economies. Although Douglas Carswell talks about 100 staff having salaries greater than that of William Hague, the Telegraph article puts the figure at fifty. The proportion of officials earning at this level will therefore be 0.0071 of the total EEAS staff of around 7000 (as quoted by the Telegraph article). I note that Sir Kim Darroch, our excellent UK Permanent Representative (or ambassador to the EU) earns at least £170,000 plus allowances, which I think illustrates the point neatly that several FCO mandarins currently earn more than the foreign secretary, their boss.
The UK still controls its own foreign policy – and if that was not the case I don't think for one moment that William Hague, who is head of our diplomacy, would stand for it. Nevertheless Conservative MEPs and the ECR Group are not satisfied with the proposed size and budget of the EEAS. We want to see more realistic expectations of what it can achieve and we are fighting for budget neutrality i.e. no increases in spending. We want to see a reduced staff component and much more scope for making savings – especially at a time of severe budgetary pressure for almost all EU member state governments. But now that the EEAS is here to stay we also need to ensure a strong British influence within it. If senior civil servants in the EEAS are indeed to earn these purported large amounts, the FCO and your MEPs should be demanding, given our current under-representation in the EU institutions, that as many as possible of them should be British.
If political power and influence is linked primarily to pay packets then MEPs were, until relatively recently, on this reckoning more important than MPs. Since July last year MEPs have been paid in euros according to the new Members' Statute. When the euro was strong, MEPs were therefore earning more in sterling terms than MPs (although the pound's subsequent rebound has reversed the situation). I don't recall anyone at the time saying that MEPs, by virtue of their higher pay, should be taken more seriously, or even as seriously, as MPs – although given the European Parliament's responsibility for approving some two-thirds of UK domestic law on some estimates, they might have had a point.
