Are things heading towards a showdown on the new EU foreign policy chief?

UPDATE (18:20) - The FT's Peter Spiegel and Alex Barker are reporting that Belgium's Karel De Gucht, currently serving as EU Trade Commissioner, could be a late entry into the race for High Representative.

Like former Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip (see below), De Gucht is a member of the liberal ALDE family - that has joined the 'grand coalition' supporting Juncker in the European Parliament and now looks to be asking for something in return.

ORIGINAL BLOG POST (17:07)

EU leaders will meet in Brussels tomorrow to get on with the assignment of the remaining top jobs. Priority will probably be given to the appointment of the EU's new foreign policy chief (aka High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy).

Italian Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini is still regarded as the frontrunner for the job. However, things may not go as smoothly as initially thought. Sources close to European Commission President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker have told Italian news agency ANSA that "ten-eleven [EU] countries" are currently against Mogherini's appointment.

The sources didn't name any names, but it is understood that Eastern EU member states are particularly reluctant, since they believe Italy did not take a hard enough stance against Russia during the Ukraine crisis.

The Lisbon Treaty establishes that, similarly to the European Commission President, the High Representative is appointed by EU leaders under qualified majority. And Italian Europe Minister Sandro Gozi has made clear Italy is prepared to go to a vote. He said:

"[The appointment of] Juncker is part of an agreement whereby the High Representative goes to the socialists." 

"Juncker has been designated by [qualified] majority. No-one ever raised objections [against Mogherini] with us. If there were any, that would mean the High Representative will also be designated by majority."

Therefore, things may be heading towards another showdown. This time, though, the outcome of the vote could be a lot more uncertain. A group of ten or eleven countries (very likely to include Poland, a qualified majority heavyweight) would have good chances of success in forming a 'blocking minority' to reject Mogherini's appointment. That would be a blow for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who seems to be investing a good deal of political capital trying to secure a post that he considers as of great prestige. But it could also shift the balance in the distribution of the other top jobs - notably the Presidency of the European Council.

Mogherini is from a centre-left party. This means her appointment would make it less likely for Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, another centre-left politician, to succeed to Herman Van Rompuy as European Council President. However, this argument could no longer be valid if the new High Representative were to come from a centre-right party.

This would be the case with Bulgaria's Kristalina Georgieva, who looks to be gaining momentum as an alternative to Mogherini, although, as our dove-hawk axis showed, Bulgaria has so far also been quite soft on Russia.

Another option could be to offer the post of European Council President to someone from an Eastern European country in order to assuage opposition to Mogherini. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk could be an option, although with Polish domestic politics in a precarious state he may prefer to stay put. In that case, former Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip - who has already been nominated as Estonia's next EU Commissioner - could be one to watch. Ansip's Estonian Reform Party belongs to the liberal ALDE group, that has joined the 'grand coalition' supporting Juncker in the European Parliament and would presumably be keen to get something substantial in return.  

In other words, a few surprises may come out of tomorrow's European Council. Stay tuned.

Can journalists please stop referring to Sikorski as "Cameron's ally"?

The leaked conversation in which senior Polish politicians including Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski savage Cameron's EU strategy - exclusively translated into English by Open Europe yesterday - is all over the UK press today.

Many of the stories have headlines refer to Sikorski as a key "ally" for David Cameron, but as we have repeatedly argued, this has long not been the case; in January, we pointed out in the wake of the row over free movement and EU migrants' access to benefits that "It isn't Brussels that David Cameron should worry about in Europe at the moment – but Warsaw".

Despite being a university friend of David Cameron and Boris Johnson's [insert obligatory Bullingdon club reference here], as well as an Anglophile and self confessed Thatcher fan, Sikorski has never been an ally on EU reform. Poland has its own interests in the EU to look after - and in recent years it become more assertive and effective in doing so - it is under no obligation to support the UK (this is after all what playing the EU game is all about). Poland considers its membership of the EU as its best guarantee of security - especially following recent events in Ukraine - and therefore sees any attempts to 'weaken' it as inimical to its interest. However, Sikorski has not only not supported the UK, he has gone out of his way to undermine Cameron's reform agenda, for example by painting it in 2012 as an attempt to "wreck and paralyse the EU".

It is true that more recently his tone and rhetoric has been more constructive - in April he said that Poland would be "perfectly willing to help [the UK] fix some of the problems of the EU”, but even his only specific suggestion was fixing the Working Time Directive. The WTD is certainly a significant issue which needs to be addressed but its hardly the most pressing problem facing the UK within the EU and it misses the point that there is a much wider critique to be made of how the EU currently operates. Indeed Sikorski's wider rhetoric - “Britain is a great victor of the EU" is implicitly dismissive of these concerns and only serves to sustain the perception that of an out of touch, arrogant EU elite.

Despite their differences over the key issue of free movement, Poland and the UK continue to share strategic interests in a number of areas from free trade, better EU regulation, energy policy, rights for non-euro members (it'll be a long time before Poland can join) and Russia/Ukraine. International diplomacy remains above all else a pragmatic business.

However, just because Cameron and Sikorski used to be Oxford drinking buddies, it does not mean they are natural allies on EU reform.

EXCLUSIVE TRANSLATION: "Cameron f***** it up" - Leaked tapes shed light on difficult relationship between London and Warsaw

As far as leaked tapes are concerned, this is extraordinary - and Open Europe offers the first translation of it all.

Poland has been rocked by a political scandal involving the covert surveillance of senior government ministers, state officials - including the governor of Poland's Central Bank Marek Belka - and business figures, and recordings of their conversations were leaked to Polish magazine Wprost. 

The whole business is distinctly shady - who did the recording and for what purpose (some have suggested Russian involvement) - and could yet lead to early elections. It has also revealed how Polish politics operates behind closed doors and shed light on what senior figures really think about a range of issues, including UK-Polish relations in the context of the EU.

We have highlighted before that this is a crucial bilateral relationship, the health of which will have a significant impact on the success or otherwise of Cameron's EU reform agenda. Unfortunately, this relationship has become particularly strained in recent times, particularly over the related questions of free movement and access to benefits. Here are the key sections of a conversation between Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and former Finance Minister Jacek Rostowski at some point this spring (we try to keep this blog family-friendly so apologies for the bad language).

Rostowski: “[Cameron] thinks he’ll go renegotiate and come back, no Polish government could agree to it. Except in return for a mountain of gold.”

Sikorski: “Its either a very badly thought through move, or, not for the first time a kind of incompetence in European affairs. Remember? He f***** up the fiscal pact. He f***** it up. Simple as that. He is not interested, he does not get it, he believes in the stupid propaganda, he stupidly tries to play the system... his whole strategy of feeding [his critics] scraps in order to satisfy them is just as I predicted, turning against him; he should have said, f*** off, tried to convince people and isolate [the sceptics]. But he ceded the field to those that are now embarrassing him.”

Rostowski: “For the Polish government to agree, someone will have to give us some mountain of gold. The Brits won’t give it to us, and the Germans, in order to keep the Brits on board, won’t give it to us either in all likelihood. So the answer will be: f*** off... [the impact of a Brexit] will generally be bad for us, because we would like for Great Britain to stay. I think it’ll be the case that [Cameron] will lose the elections. Great Britain will leave. Once they do, they’ll keep open borders. Not for [gypsy] beggars…"

Sikorski: “Just like Norway... Enough of this!” They've f***** up Eastern Europe and a few other things. [Mimics a Brit] If Europe doesn't reform, it’ll end badly! Let them worry about their economy. If they don’t re-organise themselves, they’ll have as bad an economy as Germany. What is that? What, how is that so monstrous?”

In a separate conversation with Jacek Krawiec, head of Poland's largest oil and gas conglomerate Orlen, Pawel Gras, Prime Minister Donald Tusk's then media spokesperson referred to a phone conversation between Tusk and Cameron in the wake of Cameron's comments about Polish migrants claiming benefits in the UK.

Krawiec: “What the f*** are they on about with these benefits? [Cameron] seems like a really sensible bloke... when I met him in London he talked a lot of sense”.

Gras: “Thoughtless, probably suggested by [some spin doctor] probably came from some focus group, he didn't think through the consequences, the whole thing was stupid, Donald called him at once to discuss it, he had such a go at him, I mean f*** it’s a shame we didn't record it, he had a such a proper f****** go at him.”

So what does this tell us (other than politicians use words in private they'd never use publicly)? Well leaving aside the criticism of Cameron's EU policy - which has been made before - here are a few points we've picked up on:

• It is notable that Rosowski assesses the prospects of Brexit as highly likely, and how resigned both he and Sikorski are to that outcome even while admitting that it would be bad for Poland. 
• As such, it is outright bizarre that they are so flippant and dismissive about Cameron's reform agenda - which - for all its flaws from a Polish perspective - remains the best chance for keeping the UK in the EU from a wider perspective.
• Both Rostowski and Sikorski are adamant that even in the event of a Brexit, the UK will not be able to block free movement - if it wants to maintain access to the single market - a key demand of many better off outers (Switzerland is currently facing this dilemma). 
• As the Krawiec comments demonstrate, when addressing issues of substance, Cameron can count on a good hearing from Polish business leaders, a crucial constituency, but he risks alienating Poles by ill-judged claims about 'benefit tourism'.

In conclusion, international diplomacy remains rooted in pragmatism and it is unlikely this incident will result in long term damage between London and Warsaw. It is also worth mentioning that these conversations could well have taken place before the escalation in the Ukrainian crisis which has helped to firm up Polish-British relations (with the UK taking a tougher position on sanctions than other EU member states and sending RAF fighter planes to the region). 

However, it is clear that issues like EU migrants' access to benefits - something UK public opinion will simply not allow Cameron - or indeed any other UK Prime Minister - to ignore. It is crucial therefore that both governments put aside the hyperbole and think about how tricky issues can be resolved in such a way that benefits both countries. 

When it comes to dealing with thugs, the UK becomes strangely popular in Europe

Soon to be a regular sight over Baltic skies?

The Ukrainian crisis has shown up the short-term limitations of the EU's 'soft power' in the face of a determined Russian regime not afraid of wielding its 'hard power'. Though we would argue that in the long-term, the odds still favour the EU due to Russia's disastrous demographic trends and relatively undiversified economy - and there are things the EU can do without resorting to Kremlin tactics - it's not a secret that Vladimir Putin responds better to the stick than the carrot.

Put differently, Putin doesn't exactly run for cover when Jose Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy put out a joint statement. As this stand-off is now about hard economic and political power, enter London.

 As Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced in the Commons yesterday:

"I am able to advise the House this afternoon that we have taken the decision this morning to offer NATO UK Typhoon aircraft from late April to augment the Polish contribution to the NATO Baltic air policing mission. I hope that will provide reassurance to our NATO allies in the east."

The UK is therefore the first and so far only NATO or EU member to commit troops to strengthening the EU-Russian border. TVN cites the Estonian PM Andrus Ansip describing the UK's decision as "an important step" while Foreign Minister Urmas Reinsalu noted that it constitutes a "clear and unambiguous" response to Estonia's desire to strengthen NATO's presence in the Baltic.

However, other politicians who have been been very hawkish over Ukraine - but also the most vocal critics of David Cameron in Europe more broadly - have been quiet by their usual standards. We don't want to name names, but yes, Radoslaw Sikorski and Carl Bildt we're looking at you. (Although to be fair, while they have not commenting on the jet deployment specifically, both of them have praised the UK's stance on Ukraine more generally).

This is significant because some - not least Sikorski himself - have warned that if Russia is not stopped in the Crimea, the Baltic states which have significant Russian minorities could be next on Putin's hit list. It's easy to whine about the UK being Europe's grumpy, old man complaining in the corner. However, when it comes to dealing with thugs, all of a sudden, London becomes strangely popular.

This again goes to show that without the UK, the EU's geopolitical credibility would be sorely diminished. Perhaps one for certain foreign ministers to keep in mind when the waters are calmer.

A childish row which benefits no one

The lifting of transitional controls on Romanians and Bulgarians hasn't done much to calm the debate about EU free movement and EU migrants' access to the UK benefits system with David Cameron again floating changes to the rules around child benefit paid to EU migrants whose families live abroad. Speaking on the Andrew Marr show, Cameron argued that:

"there are other European countries, who like me, think it’s wrong that someone from Poland, who comes here, who works hard and I am absolutely all in favour of that – but I don’t think they should be paying, we should be paying child benefit, to their family back at home in Poland."

This prompted a fierce riposte from Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski (not exactly a supporter of Cameron's EU strategy anyway) on twitter which comes hot on the heels of another UK-Polish row over the issue of free movement:

If Britain gets our taxpayers, shouldn't it also pay their benefits? Why should Polish taxpayers subsidize British taxpayers' children?
— Radosław Sikorski (@sikorskiradek) January 6, 2014

@BrunoBrussels UK social security rules apply to all resident EU citizens. No need to stigmatize Poles. What about British children abroad?
— Radosław Sikorski (@sikorskiradek) January 6, 2014

This is the crux of the matter - under EU law, specifically the regulation on social security co-ordination) it is difficult for the UK to discriminate between UK citizens and other EU/EEA nationals (remember the EU has already launched a legal challenge against the UK's right to reside test) so they are all equally eligible to receive child benefit providing they meet the other criteria.

Although the sums of money are not huge when compared to other welfare expenditure (estimated by Migration Watch - not known for providing conservative estimates - to be £55m a year), to many voters this process is incomprehensible and cannot be justified which is why Cameron has singled it out as a priority for renegotiation. However, Sikorski and others are entitled to point out that Poles and other EU nationals pay tax in the UK and so contribute towards funding the system. As we've pointed out on a number of occasions, EU free movement comes with economic benefits - the UK debate ahead of the lifting of transitional control has at times been pretty hysteric - but at the same time, radically different income levels and varying benefit systems do present a challenge which requires sensitive and pragmatic political management.

Ultimately, there is no reason why a sensible compromise cannot be reached, but this requires proper, policy based discussions, rather than trading in hyperbole. This is precisely what our upcoming EU reform conference is geared towards - bringing leading reformers from around Europe together to debate the issues and appreciate that different countries come at these issues from different perspectives. Given recent developments, our roundtable debate on free movement - featuring Tory MP Priti Patel and Civil Platform MP Agnieszka Pomaska - who chairs the Polish parliament's EU Affairs committee - is set to be one of the highlights of the conference.

Do get in touch if you want to know more about the conference.

'Handygate': The number of EU countries involved growing by the minute

Well, this one snowballed quickly. The number of countries either implicated - or feeling the need to comment on - "Handygate" (as the Germans call it) is growing by the minute. Here's a round-up.

Germany: The fallout over allegations that the NSA hacked Angela Merkel's phone continues. According to Bild am Sonntag, US President Barack Obama was personally briefed about the eavesdropping by NSA Director, Keith Alexander, as far back as 2010. Several papers claim that the American embassy in Berlin was used as a hub for the alleged bugging.

However, according to US officials quoted by the WSJ and FAZ, Obama was unaware of the whole affair. The reason? The NSA has so many tapping operations going on that it wouldn't have been practical to brief the President about all of them. The article suggests the White House did scrap some monitoring programmes upon learning about them, including the one tracking Angela Merkel.

Spain: Spanish daily El Mundo dropped a bit of a bomb today, claiming that the NSA bugged over 60 million phone calls in Spain in just one month - between 10 December 2012 and 8 January 2013. The report, also based on former NSA agent Edward Snowden's secret documents, suggested the eavesdropping didn't involve the actual content of the phone calls - just their duration and where they were being made from. But still.

The Spanish Foreign Ministry summoned the US Ambassador in Madrid, James Costos - who later stressed in a statement that the wire-tapping activities have played "a fundamental role" in protecting both US  interests and those of its allies.

Italy: Italian magazine L'Espresso alleged last week that not only the US, but also the UK had been spying on Rome. The latest is that, according to the Cryptome website, the NSA allegedly bugged some 46 million phone calls in Italy between December 2012 and January 2013. But the Italian intelligence service has urged caution, saying there's "no evidence" supporting the claims.

France: Though the French press has been relatively quiet about the episode today, the country has already summoned the ambassador with the accompanied public outrage from politicians. It seems to be dying down a bit in France, though.

Poland: Notoriously Atlanticist, Warsaw has also been forced to go public, with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski saying over the weekend that the alleged hacking was a "scandal which undermines trust" and that he would be inquiring with Washington whether Poland was also affected by NSA surveillance. However, asked in the interview whether Poland was under surveillance, he apparently answered with a smile: "We also use surveillance".

Sweden: Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has been taking a chilled approach, insisting that he knows "what kind of world we live in" and that "I never say things over the phone that could hurt Sweden if it ended up with a foreign power."

Netherlands: Prime Minister Mark Rutte has said that "I will support [Merkel] completely in her complaint and say that this is not acceptable. I think we need all the facts on the table first."

Belgium:  Belgian Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo commented, "The idea is to have a working method [at the EU level] by the end of the year, which should avoid that friends spy on each other." However, asked on whether the EU should suspend free trade talks with the US, Di Rupo said, "We want to avoid blackmail."

UK: Finally, though the worst fears over suspension of the EU-US trade deal so far have not materialised (although it's still balanced on a knife's edge), David Cameron remains stuck between a rock (the US) and a hard place (Germany). In the Commons today, Cameron talked up the need for a robust intelligence service, saying it has "also allowed us to warn our EU allies about terrorist plots aimed at their people."

A pan-European desire to clarify rules on free movement and access to welfare?

To some, the Commission's decision, two weeks ago, to take the UK to the ECJ over its rules on EU migrants' access to welfare was further evidence of an 'isolated' UK. However, there are a whole host of other countries concerned and eager to discuss the issue.

At last week’s meeting of EU Home Affairs Ministers, it was agreed to look at the concerns raised by the UK, Austria, Germany and the Netherlands on this very issue.

But it is not simply the wealthier member states (that are the main destinations for intra-EU migration) that want this deeply sensitive debate around access to welfare to be clarified. Yesterday, Dutch Foreign Minister Frank Timmermans and his Polish counterpart Radosław Sikorski, discussed this very issue. Here is what Timmermans said on the matter:

“The Netherlands strongly believes that the free movement of people is one of the fundamental matters of the EU…We are not talking about restricting this freedom but we believe that a discussion is necessary on whether this freedom should entail full access to the social security systems of member states.” 

This is what Sikorski said during his subsequent speech at Leiden University:

“I tell you frankly, we will veto any attempt to compromise on one of these four freedoms of the single market. But this not to say that the member states should not be able to regulate their social provisions. You are a richer country then we are, so you have more generous unemployment benefits... if you have gaps in your social security system, you are free to plug them”.

Both countries (the host and sending state) have an interest in ensuring that the rules governing access to welfare are clear and transparent and not open to abuse. As we've argued, this could help to restore public confidence in free movement.

And all the more reason for the Commission to sit up and listen to national governments rather than taking them to court!

Is Sikorski in with a chance of being the next EU foreign minister?

Europe's next foreign minister?

With the current Commission term due to expire next year speculation is already turning to who will replace the current crop – especially the ‘top jobs’ of Commission President (or will Barroso go for a Roosevelt-esque third term?) and the high representative for foreign affairs, a post currently occupied by Britain’s own Baroness Cathy Ashton.

There has been much speculation that following her widely acknowledged ‘low-key’ performance in the role (in fairness this was not entirely her fault), her successor would be a well-established ‘foreign policy star’, with Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski widely tipped. However, while Sikorski would indeed have a degree of ‘star appeal’ and foreign policy credibility (certainly when compared with Ashton), here are the reasons why we think this is unlikely.

Firstly, Sikorski is hugely ambitious and it is difficult to see him agreeing to take-up a position where his ability to seriously influence events will be limited by the well documented limitations of EU foreign policy. In particular Sikorski has ambitions for greater EU military co-operation and will unlikely be satisfied by firing off carefully worded press releases about human rights abuses in developing countries. Yet while many EU countries want to see the EEAS delivering more, many are also reluctant to hand over too much competence in the field of foreign policy decision making to the EU given very real differences of opinion on key issues – most recently Syria. Likewise, EU defence co-operation remains more realistic on paper than on the ground, not least with current spending restrictions, while the recent Cypriot crisis demonstrated Europe’s weakness in that it was willing to gamble Russia gaining greater political and economic influence on the island.

Furthermore, assuming that Sikorski genuinely wants the job, he is somewhat of a marmite character which could cost him support in national capitals. His strong neo-conservative and Atlanticist tendencies are likely to cost him support, not least in Paris, while the Germans may fear that his candidacy would antagonise Russia. Conversely, he has also become a vocal champion for greater EU integration, famously calling on Germany to play an active leading role in Europe, which could also cost him support, especially in the current climate. While his Atlanticism and his strong British links (he was a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford) ought to secure UK support, his rather clumsly recent intervention into UK domestic politics, when he announced that Poland would not help the UK to “wreck or paralyse the EU” and listing a number of tired and clichéd 'EU myths' is not likely to gone down well in Whitehall and Westminster.

Finally, there is also much speculation that current Polish PM Donald Tusk could be being lined up to replace Barroso, in which case Sikorski's candidacy for high representative would be a non-starter.

All in all we would expect the next high representative, while likely to be more heavyweight than Baroness Ashton, will nonetheless not be someone with a personality and profile to challenge national leaders’ primacy in the area of foreign policy.

Poland and EU defence: Having your Pączek and eating it

Speaking to the Polish Parliament yesterday, Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski pointed the finger at the UK for not pulling its weight in the domain of European defence, claiming that he was "disappointed" that the UK did not want to build up joint EU defence capabilities, and that those member states that wanted to ought to use the ‘enhanced co-operation’ clause in the Lisbon Treaty to go ahead without it.

Sikorski set out a slightly distopian vision of the future in which:

"Tired by parsimony on defence budgets and Europe's general inefficiency, the US leaves Nato. The post-Western vacuum is filled by Russia in the east and by China in Asia. Transformational crises continue in the Arab world [but] Europe no longer sets a good example. And where is Poland in this black vision? Left to its own devices, on the periphery of a Europe mired in lethargy. Struggling with unfinished modernisation and deprived of a solid basis for national security."

However, actions speak larger than words, and it worth pointing out that Poland’s record on defence spending falls short of Sikorski’s rhetoric; 1.9% of GDP - below the 2% recommended minimum set by NATO. Moreover, when offered an opportunity to cooperate with other European and NATO countries in last years’ Libyan operation it decided to not to get involved, despite being pressed to do so by NATO leaders (although the government did volunteer logistical support).

Sikorski is however right about one thing – Europe’s unwillingness to shoulder the burden of its own defence. The Libyan operation exposed this on a grand scale; although on paper it was an impressive show of European (and non European) cooperation, with states such as France, the UK, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden all sending planes to enforce to no-fly zone. Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Spain and Turkey also helped to some extent and Estonia and Croatian said they would also help if need be, but Poland and Germany did not help and Cyprus was actively opposed.

Furthermore, the operation exposed Europe’s continued reliance on the US. France and the UK were for instance unable to operate independently, having to rely on US command and control, logistics and assets, with the strains on their forces quickly exposed.

So why has Sikorski decided to attack the UK for preventing the EU having a larger role in defence? Most likely it is a form of political displacement activity: Sikorski knows EU defence budgets are under pressure and there is no real prospect of EU states increasing their capabilities. He knows this structural problem would not be alleviated by more EU structures or headquarters duplicating those that already exist in NATO, but by blaming Europe’s defence failings on the UK he is at least fuelling a debate over the future of Europe’s defensive structures.

In our view, if Poland and other European states want to be serious on defence (if they don't that's a national democratic choice which others have to accept) then they should actually stick to the 2% of GDP NATO minimum guideline. Ironically the only EU member states to comfortably exceed it at the moment (apart from the UK at 2.7%) is Greece (2.9%) – the one country that should cut its defence budget. The USA by contrast to the EU average of 1.7% spends a staggering 5.4% of its GDP on defence. EU countries should also reform their defence capabilities by investing in deployable modern forces. In the modern world cooperation will, as seen in Libya, be via variable alliances and groupings, in that the breath of NATO is indispensable. It is not only Poland that fears a defenceless Europe beholden to Russia, but if it is going to lead on this issue it will have to pulls its own weight first.