He isn't commenting about Greensill as you might think (!) but about lobbying of the EU itself. This is something Norway knows well. Sverdrup says:
"The UK has left the EU, but it has not left Europe. It is obviously in the long term interest of the UK to continue to influence important developments in Europe, and it will be in the interest of the UK to seek to shape some of the rules, standards and regulations that directly and indirectly will affect the UK also in the future."
He questions how Britain will be able to influence events in Europe when it isn't in the room and doesn't know what is going on, which things are being discussed, what's important to the EU at any given moment and what is likely to come up in the future. This will I think be a problem.
He points out:
"The UK no longer has the same first-hand knowledge of what goes on at meetings, no longer has the power of the penholder, can no longer be able to link issues in bargains, no longer know the fine print or have a tacit understanding how regulations are to be interpreted. The UK will slide from being in the hub of the information flow to a position in the periphery. This may also have implications for the importance and status of the UK globally, and for its role as an information exchange partner for other third countries: a position the UK has often exploited with great skill in its relations with the United States."
It will cement our position as a supplicant although it won't always be obvious, As Sverdrup says:
"After more than 25 years of experience, the Norwegians and the Swiss can also testify that it is challenging and resource demanding to seek influence from the outside. It is also somewhat humiliating to always request information, while being unable to give much in return (apart from lunches and dinners)."
With masterful timing, he says lobbying is coming in for increased criticism, and in the EU "measures have been taken in recent years to better regulate lobbying activities." Apparently, there are some people in Brussels who would like to see even more restrictions, to "enhance democracy as well as to strengthen Europe’s strategic autonomy" and if that happens "the already hard life as a lobbyist nation might become even harder."
For many Brexiteers of course, Brexit should have been the catalyst for the collapse of the EU, an aim they of course share with Vladimiir Putin, but it has in fact had the reverse effect.
To reinforce the point, Gideon Rachman at the FT writes this week that The EU’s stability will again confound its critics and despite Covid, the European Union, he says, is in better shape politically than the US or UK. He talks about the persistent scepticism about the future of the EU but points out that the UK is in far more danger than the EU of fragmenting. He writes:
"With the passage of time, the European project may become increasingly secure. Opinion polls show that young people are more pro-EU than older voters. The changing international environment is also boosting the case for the EU. With China and Russia both looking more threatening, and the US looking less reliable, the case for Europeans sticking together is becoming more compelling."
Finally, Westminster watchers will be fascinated to see the speed with which Johnson has set up an enquiry into Cameron and the Greensill affair. This is a man who should be enquired into for all sorts of stuff but isn't and ignores the results of enquiries into his ministers anyway. I still think this may be a way to take Sunak down a peg or two but we shall see.
