Last week I wrote an article about Baroness Ashton’s poor track record of attendance at European Commission meetings. It stirred up debate so I thought it worth coming back to.
It’s all matter of record, along with the rest of the “college”, see here. To recap: for the last 42 meetings of the European Commission college, Jan 6 2010 to Jan 4 2011, she was totally absent for 17, 40 per cent. She was not present for the entire meeting on 11 occasions (26 per cent) but managed to make it for 14 (34 per cent).
These figures are, in fact, a charitable estimate for, as one official told me, my count is for the full year and not since February 9 2010 when the new commission was formed. In that case her non-attendance rate rises to 44 per cent.
Before writing the article, I sent the figures to various EU contacts I have both within and without the commission to ask whether the record was a bad one. The answer, unanimously, was “it’s bad”. I also emailed the results to her office, to confirm the particulars and to give her people over 24 hours to respond.
Even so, and typically, in a letter to the Telegraph (published) James Morrison, Lady Ashton’s prickly chef de cabinet, disputed the figures. “A new year but the same distortion in your story about Catherine Ashton’s attendance record at European Commission meetings. An attendance record of more than 60 per cent at Commission meetings is astonishing,” he wrote.
The “astonishing” record is less than 60 per cent as the figures show – but never mind, EU rebuttals never let the facts get in the way of a good denunciation. Morrison, rightly defending Lady Ashton’s punishing schedule as a “double-hatted” High Rep and commission VP (of which more later), went on to make a frankly incredible statement.
“Catherine Ashton is well known as one of the hardest working people in Brussels,” he fibbed, squinting through rose tinted spectacles and crossing his fingers behind his back.
Lady Ashton, who has never been elected to public office, is known for but a few things and being “one of the hardest working people in Brussels” is not one of them. In fact, her contempt for working in Brussels, and disdain for commission meetings is as well known as her track record of NOT being in the right place at the right time.
Ronny Patz, over on Ideas on Europe, dissects both Morrison’s claims and my article – read it here, while not a natural ally (as I’m sure he would be the first to admit) he draws similar conclusions, using a slightly different counting methodology.
Lady Ashton has a difficult job juggling the demands of her foreign policy role – which is tough enough – as well as a position as a commission vice-president and Britain’s commissioner. Half of the problem is with her but the other half is with EU institutions.
EU foreign policy has an inbuilt tension: it demands both visibility and invisibility; being seen in places like post-earthquake Haiti and being involved in the tortuous behind closed doors, the nitty gritty, of diplomatic negotiations. With the launch of the EEAS, some of Lady Ashton’s problems may get easier. Pierre Vimont, for example, the EEAS’s secretary general, took the strain on the Cote d’Ivoire crisis – although some still believe that she was too slow off the mark allowing France, the ex-colonial power, to dominate proceedings.
Her structural problem is the Lisbon Treaty’s absurd “double hat” arrangement where she is both EU High Representative and commission VP. Despite being in a unique position, unlike any other commissioner, Jose Manuel Barroso, the EC president has refused to allow any rule changes to allow Lady Ashton to deputise or video conference for meetings.
The Council of the EU, an equally august institution, allows ministers to deputise, even for votes – why can’t the commission? When Lady Ashton cannot attend one of her officials takes her chair (usually a pretty junior one, who cannot speak regardless of seniority). Votes under the Soviet-style “Hebdo” system almost never occur but if she is not there the CFSP does not have an authoritative voice in the commission, negating the whole idea of the “double hat” in the first place. If the presence of commissioners at the “college” is irrelevant under the Hebdo system (a weekly meeting of chefs de cabinet), then what are they for?
One of the most enduring euro-fantasies, both from phobes and philes, is the myth that commissioners (as per their oath) do not “take instructions” from national states or governments. Of course, as everyone knows, from the outrageously chauvinist Antonio Tajani to the urbanely discreet Michel Barnier, all commissioners are also national politicians and often speak in meetings to reflect the concerns of “the country they know best”. Lady Ashton’s difficulties in engaging with her commission job are universally recognised as something of a problem for Britain by all parties, officials, MEPs, MPs, and national diplomats, that I have spoken to.
Needless to say, from inside the High Rep’s bubble, where all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, Morrison sees it otherwise. “Even when Catherine Ashton is not able to attend the European Commission’s weekly meeting, the process in Brussels ensures that her voice is heard and that her views are fully reflected in Commission decisions,” he hallucinates.
Lady Ashton has a very difficult job and her difficulties have been compounded by the commission’s vindictive refusal to make life easier for her, a resented institutional rival who has taken DGs, staff and power away from the Berlaymont/Charlemagne HQ to create a new EU foreign service.
But – and it’s a very big BUT – the defining question is one of political character.
As a Labour peer, appointed as an act of political cronyism to Britain’s undemocratic House of Lords, Lady Ashton does not possess the political nous or commitment of an elected politician. Apart from one or two months last year, she has shown herself to be unwilling to travel or work over weekends. Working Monday to Friday might be fine for a jobsworth public official or serial quango/Lords appointee but it’s not good enough for an EU foreign minister. People who want to change the world have to give up prosaic ideas like the work/life balance.
Let’s be brutal. Lady Ashton, outside her commendable past in CND, has never fought for politics. Her career (note the word) has been a conveyor belt of appointments. Her place in the current job is based on an unlikely sequence of events akin to someone winning the lottery rather than any political contest or test of merit.
The lack of public persona is evidenced by her extreme aversion to the media, which she dislikes intensely for having criticised her. Lady Ashton prefers closed meetings to public question and answer.
One of my colleagues was told security guards would throw her out of a press briefing with Lady Ashton if she asked forbidden questions. Another, investigating an EEAS mission in Africa was threatened with the police unless she desisted, a real threat in that part of the world. A new spin doctor – see here – was to be chosen from Rupert Murdoch’s media empire to try and patch up the damage but, as the rumour has it, his salary costs are too high, even for the EU.
She has also failed to relocate to Brussels, choosing to juggle her life on London’s chatterati circuit, where her husband Peter Kellner is a big player, with her EU job. An elected politico, perhaps such as David Miliband who was the first person lined up for the job, would realise that political life takes more commitment. Being a national foreign minister, let alone the EU’s, is a seven day operation. Politics has no room for part-timers and nor should it.
Political respect is earned. It is not conferred by office. Lady Ashton hasn’t earned it – not yet.
+++
Happy new year to all

#1 by Freeborn John on January 11, 2011 - 1:29 am
No point in discussing the occupant of a position which should not exist.
#2 by Vihar Georgiev on January 11, 2011 - 9:46 am
Hi there,
It would really be interesting to see the results if you cross-check Hillary Clinton’s level of participation in US Cabinet meetings.
#3 by Emile on January 11, 2011 - 10:09 am
For once Mr Waterfield we are in complete agreement. First, however let me parry the most likely accusation which will be hurled at both of use for daring to criticise a commissioner-since your article appears originally in the Daily Telegraph and only quotes Tory and EPP politicians as someone pointed out in the comments section of the Telegraph you are open to the acusation of being a Tory attack dog. Let me make it clear that even though I thoroughly despise the Conservative party, I am still in complete agreement.
Catherine Ashton (I refuse to refer to such an incompetent with a noble title) is an ambarassment to herself, to the UK, to the EU, the Commission and politics in general. She is a pathetic foreign rep. I did not even realise her attendance record is this bad and I still thought this-you can see how bad she is at her job if you follow what she does and does not do. She seems to always be one step behind, going where she isnt needed and not going where she is.
She also doesnt have the guts to stand up to China (for example by not attending the Noble peace prize ceremony) and is way, way too friendly with Clinton to effectively fight for the EU’s interests.
Also as you rightly point out, not only is she not elected to this position, she has hardly ever been elected to anything-and one could see why-the woman is so underwhealming that it beggars belief that she was chose as High Rep of all things. I truly am embarassed that she is tasked with conveying an image of Europe.
The issues of her not wanting to move to Brussels and not working on weekends are grave-her position simply should not allow her this discretion. Shes here now and perhaps she will grow into the job, however if she does not improve quickly things will get bad. The EU has no voice as long as she is High Rep.
If only she could be sacked…
#4 by Lawrence Jones on January 11, 2011 - 11:35 am
A tidy summary of Ms Ashton’s performance. The idea of an effectual united EU foreign policy on most geopolitical issues remains in the realm of fantasy. The late and half-hearted response to the developments in Belarus exposed this blatantly; yesterday the united Belarus opposition squarely condemned the EU’s Eastern Partnership as actually having helped uphold the Lukashenko regime (see czechposition.com). On the personal level, Ashton clearly lacks the skills, noose and character to be a diplomat. Again the events in Belarus exposed this: she felt the need to wait for Hilary Clinton to hold her had to deliver a statement. The thought of her negotiating with a diplomatic heavyweight like Sergei Lavrov makes me cringe.
#5 by Nicu on January 11, 2011 - 11:56 am
well… what you describe is the fact that she is a full-time ‘foreign minister’, but only a part time commissioner… this is probably bad, but not very unusual.
My hunch is that most foreign ministers in countries with an active diplomacy have a performance not that far from Ashton’s in terms of attending cabinet meetings. the difference though is that national foreign ministers have deputy ministers who replace them, whereas Commissioners do not… but that is an institutional problem, not a personal one… if Ashton was not travelling as she does – she would be criticised for spending time in ‘comfortable’ Brussels rather than showing the EU flag where it is most important. so whatever Ashton does with the travelling or non-travelling commitments – it is bad… and that is unfair.
#6 by dcm on January 11, 2011 - 1:56 pm
A great expose. I don’t think her bad attendance record is really a problem. But the reason the piece has traction is because it points to a deeper issue – namely whether she is really committed to the job. The fact she takes time in London, goes off on weekends, can’t be contacted in evenings etc is not news, and wouldn’t have made the papers, but is the real problem here. The high rep. is paid a CEO salary – they should work like one.
#7 by Victor on January 11, 2011 - 8:35 pm
It would be great if we could evaluate High Representative/Vicepresident (HR/VP) Catherine Ashton´s record on a thorough qualitative as well as quantitative basis.
As you rightly point out indirectly, Ashton is not double-hatted but actually has 6 hats:
1. High Representative for Foreign Affairs (ambassadorial/representative duties);
2. Vicepresident of the Commission (administrative/coordinating duties);
3. President of the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Development Ministers configurations in the EU Council (consensus building);
4. Participant of the European Council (right of initiative);
5. Member of the Commission for the United Kingdom (national advocacy);
6. Head of the new European External Action Service -EEAS- (operational duties).
She is also nominal Head of the European Defense Agency and president of its steering board.
As it has been rightly pointed out, one of her main duties has been the setting up of the as yet unoperational EEAS. At least on this one it could at least have been more clearly acknowledged her ability to mediate between Parliament, Commission and Council.
She has also only in the last few months been able to make appointments to the dozens of positions which would make her life easier.
You point to Ashton´s attendance record at the Commission, but there are other comparisons and facts that should be published simultaneously so we can all judge with appropriate perspective whether she is basically a slack as you definitively accuse her of without using the word as much.
It would be good to know:
A) how her attendance record truly compares to former Commissioners for Foreign Affairs;
B) what her attendance record was like as Commissioner for Trade;
C) how her attendance record in the EU Council of Ministers and the European Council of Heads of State and Government compares to that of former Commissioners and to former High Representative Solana´s;
D) any specifics examples of how she has failed to defend the UK´s interests in the Commission;
E) any specific examples of meetings or summits she has missed because she wanted to be in London or take the weekend or evening off.
You can use her record of Agendas, which is also public: http://eeas.europa.eu/agenda/index_en.htm
I don’t see the point of repeating the fact that she is an appointed minister or that she is a peer. I thought British conservatives liked the monarchy, the lords and the parliamentary system of government. I fail to see what makes Lady Ashton unique in the UK for her background.
The fact that she was lucky that Mandelson resigned from the Commission and that Blair was running to be chosen President of the European Council while Merkel was running from it, all of which turned out to favor Ashton´s appointment was not of her making and she shouldn’t be faulted or judged based on it.
If she is as bad as the accusations from all the (only right wing) politicians you quote in your article in The Daily Telegraph suggest she should be kicked out immediately. (For the record, the procedure is in Article 18(1) of the Treaty on European Union: 1. The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the Commission, shall appoint the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The European Council may end his term of office by the same procedure.)
For the year or so she has been in the position I have read about criticism of her lack of attendance at this or the other meeting or event. But it always turns out she was attending another meeting or event.
Some have criticized her priorities. But that is a matter of opinions and not facts.
It is completely different to accuse someone of having poor judgment than to say someone doesn’t deserve their pay (basically stealing) because they don’t even try to do what they were hired to do.
I know the British have particularly lax journalistic standards and that sensationalism is a must to sell stories. But I am always ashamed when people unfairly criticize people (and not ideas) as a means to further their points of view. Respect for the dignity of the individual to me is a must, even if it’s a politician.
#8 by Pedro on January 13, 2011 - 6:03 am
Citizens of member states which espouse such abhorrent “European credentials,” should be prohibited from holding any posts in EU institutions. Back to the little “island,” AND STAY THERE!!
#9 by japple on January 19, 2011 - 5:59 pm
It would appear that acccording to writer Lady Ashton is the Commissioner for Britain; an error which also appeared in the original Daily Telegraph article. Just to set the record straight, Britain is not a memer of the EU – The United Kingdom is.
Shame on you. How long have you been reporting on EU and European affairs?
#10 by Aleksandra on January 21, 2011 - 11:52 pm
She represent the UK in the EU perfectly.
It is the essence of the whole EU- UK relation; as if she (UK) was saying ‘kind of don’t want to be here (Brussels- EU) but have to’…
#11 by Ronald on January 25, 2011 - 11:25 am
Discussions of Ashton inevitably trigger the question of why,in the EU political arena, there seem to be more horses’ asses than horses.
#12 by Marcel on January 28, 2011 - 8:41 pm
Can we vote this democracy hating woman out?
Oh wait… I forgot this isn’t a democracy anymore.