For the uninitiated, the attraction of watching certain sports — skiing, gymnastics, Formula One, horse jumping — lies in waiting for an accident to happen. So it is with a speech by Jean-Claude Juncker. Could he reach the end of his 2016 State of the Union address without a repeat of last year’s car crash?
The rubberneckers were left disappointed. Juncker gave a performance that was, by his standards, very controlled. For the most part, he stuck to the script. If it is true, as he suggested in his closing remarks, that “history will not remember us but will remember our mistakes,” then the 2016 State of the Union speech will fade gently into oblivion.
Ironically, those closing remarks — the last two minutes — were not included in the text the Commission published shortly after delivery. So Juncker’s additional declaration that “history will not remember our names” will fade faster than the rest of his speech.
Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey
That would be a shame, if only because as a rhetorical device it deserves to be savored: Juncker’s name will be remembered for much longer than most of his audience of European parliamentarians. And not just because of his mistakes.
In those closing paragraphs, Juncker urged Europe to hold its nerve: What mattered was Europe’s strength of purpose in the face of severe challenges. History, he said, would judge them by the strength of their will and conviction. It was, however, a rare moment of rhetorical flight. The speech, for most of its 49-minute duration, stayed close to the ground.
Early on, Juncker alluded to the “letter of intent” that he and his first vice president, Frans Timmermans, had sent to Parliament President Martin Schulz and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico that morning. In essence, that letter constitutes the Commission’s draft work program for the coming year. The State of the Union speech turned out to be an “edited highlights” version of that draft program, interspersed with some explanatory paragraphs on the general themes.
That didn’t make for coherence, nor an over-arching vision (he promised that for March next year). Few people would have come away with an understanding of “the state of the Union.” But it did ensure that the speech maintained a businesslike, workmanlike quality, which for Commission staff who remember last year’s speech must have come as a blessing.
* * *
In contrast to last year, the audience in the Parliament was subdued. This time, the Euroskeptic heckling never took off. There was a flicker of sarcastic laughter when Juncker alluded to his Commission’s fight against tax evasion, but it died out — possibly because that ruling against Ireland on €13 billion aid to Apple is just too recent to be ignored.
Nigel Farage, the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, was present, but was subdued by his standards. The Brexit referendum was much alluded to in the subsequent responses by MEPs, but its greatest impact may have been to predispose most lawmakers to give Juncker an easy ride.
The Commission’s media managers will have been grateful for that because it kept their leader on track. This was a speech tailor-made for the social media age. Short sentences don’t just suit Juncker’s stilted, wheezy delivery: they are also ripe for recycling on Twitter.
As Juncker stuck doggedly to his script, you knew the teams of Twitter managers were dutifully sending his pay-off lines around the globe:
- “Europe is not the Wild West but a social market economy without social dumping.”
- “I will not accept that milk is cheaper than water.”
- “Europeans can never accept Polish workers being harassed, beaten up or even murdered on the streets of Essex.”
- “We propose today to equip every European village and every city with free wireless internet access around the main centers of public life by 2020.”
- “Today, we propose to double the duration of the [European Investment] Fund and double its financial capacity.”
- “I want to see the deployment of 200 border guards and 50 vehicles at the Bulgarian external border by October.”
The effect, however, of so many would-be soundbites and the compressed weight of policy pronouncements was to numb the senses. Sandwiched between Juncker’s take on the refugee crisis and his plans to counter terrorism, for instance, came an announcement that his Commission was proposing the creation of a European Solidarity Corps for young people to undertake public service.
This, in case you missed it, was Juncker’s JFK moment: 56 years ago next month, John F. Kennedy, then a presidential candidate, delivered an impromptu speech on the steps of the University of Michigan — now regarded as a defining moment in the creation of the Peace Corps — in which he asked the students how many would be prepared to serve abroad. “On your willingness to do that, not merely to serve one year or two years in the service, but on your willingness to contribute part of your life to this country, I think will depend the answer whether a free society can compete.”
By the time of his inauguration speech a few months later, the idea of the Peace Corps was promoted with the immortal phrase, “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
Compare and contrast: “I want this European Solidarity Corps up and running by the end of the year. And by 2020, to see the first 100,000 young Europeans taking part. By voluntarily joining the European Solidarity Corps, these young people will be able to develop their skills and get not only work but also invaluable human experience.” If the idea ever does come to fruition, there won’t be a quotation from Juncker on the cap-badges.
This was a speech delivered with more perspiration than inspiration. It was safe, considered and competent. It steered a course between the pessimism to which Juncker is sometimes prone (though not as often as Donald Tusk, the European Council president) and the optimism that Guy Verhofstadt displayed to rhetorical excess shortly after. Its ideas are mostly defensible, though many will be watered down by the Council of Ministers, and some by the European Parliament. Juncker did what he had to do: Get this speech out of the way.
What matters next is whether his commissioners can deliver on at least some of what he has promised and whether the national governments are prepared to pay the bills.
Tim King writes POLITICO‘s Brussels Sketch