At yesterdays Fabian Conference “The Global Change we Need” in London,
David Miliband and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen spent a significant amount of time talking to each other away from the conference floor. It would surprise me if they had not discussed the upcoming decisions on EU top posts in general and the role of High Representative in particular.

Miliband should grasp the opportunity. He would craft European Foreign, Defence and Security for a generation to come. He leads on climate change, G20, nuclear disarmament and arctic warming for the EU. He is a consensus builder. He is what Europe needs in that post.

Five years as High Representative of Europe or 8 years as shadow leader?

While it must be obvious to Miliband more than any other that the Foreign Office is – like the offices of Agriculture and Trade of the past – on the slow and steady path to redundancy within the ever-centralising EU-state construct, I expect what he wants above all is the top job.

But what confuses me about many of our so-called leaders who favour greater political integration within the EU is how they can still aspire to such office when, as a direct consequence of their EU-enthusiasm, those offices are increasingly devoid of power.

What does such apparent ‘ambition’ for mere symbolism, rather than the ability to lead and bring about real change in line with a distinct vision, say about the quality of today’s political leaders?

Certainly the situation may well explain why there’s increasing public dissatisfaction with our democratic system. The danger of which, for stability and prosperity, should never be underestimated.