A Polish friend draws my attention to this speech by FCO Minister of State David Lidington. It's all about the European Union, delivered to a senior French audience earlier this week.
Read the whole thing.
To me as a speechwriting technician there's something oddly 'thin' about it. It ticks the usual boxes - the speechwriter has made an effort to find some not-obvious French angles to weave in, the policy is what it is (with some flirtacious hints at how London sees EU institutions reforming, eg to give national parliaments new powers to stop EU-level legislation in its tracks), and the language is mostly direct.
Yet there are some glumly clunky passages.
The science 'bookends' of the speech (opening and closing sentences) are contrived and bear no reference to the heart of the speech. They read as if someone was searching over-hard for something 'lively' to say and could come up with only this curious attempt to show happy brainy Europeans working together. The speech itself endearingly acknowledges that this opening makes no real sense:
I have been invited here today to talk about the Future of Europe, so you may be wondering why the focus on science. First, it is a good news story, for which I make no apology. But it is also a demonstration of what Europe’s finest minds can achieve when they set themselves to it.
And what does the final thought actually mean in the context of the European Union's many unhappinesses:
Last year we found the “God particle” that holds the physical fabric of the universe together. If that’s not a reason for optimism, I don’t know what is.
Not a clarion call the miserable Greeks want to hear?
Then there are the baffling mixed metaphors and ugly language:
I believe that if we can harness our greatest minds and face up to the difficult decisions that confront us then Europe will grow and prosper. We are at a turning point...
We need to tighten up this directive and improve enforcement so that French and British companies face a level playing field as they do business across Europe...
Flexibility is part of the EU’s DNA. [Huh?] Flexibility simply reflects the diversity of EU countries, which is something that we need to recognize and preserve.
We agree that there is a core to Europe, namely the single market, where we must all act together. But we think that flexible, willing cooperation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre
a worrying disconnect between those who spend EU money and those who earn it – the taxpayers
The whole thing is grimly musty - too many empty exhortations:
... if there is one change we can make to improve our long-term prosperity, it must be to increase our external trade
France and Britain must show leadership
We must seize this opportunity
... we must reduce the burden on small and medium-sized firms
... there is a core to Europe, namely the single market, where we must all act together
And the shifty comparatives:
in a Europe that is more open, more competitive, more flexible and more democratically accountable
Our starting point is a more open Europe
... national parliaments ... need to play a far more active role in the functioning of the EU
Why all these 'mores'? Don't we want a Europe that is in fact open, competitive, flexible and accountable?
All in all, there is something missing here on the intellectual level. It feels underpowered, making some safe noises but studiously avoiding all the key Big Questions about the limits of EU economic and political integration.
No doubt that's partly deliberate. In Whitehall it's up to Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers to weigh in heavily (if they can) to define national policy, while Ministers of State loyally keep things ticking over.
But I can't help feeling that even within those constraints speeches like this to a sophisticated audience ought to have some real substance and tighter language suggesting a steely intelligence behind the scenes and indeed on them.
Most of all on the key problem for HMG and other capitals: that in fact murky EU-level regulation-making is subject to regulatory capture by powerful vested interests who don't care less about consumers or competitiveness.
And that to make the EU 'more' flexible and competitive maybe you in fact need more powers at the EU level, and less nation state?
