SEE MORE
"The present British coalition government and especially its prime minister, David Cameron, have come out more strongly in favour of closer European economic and political integration – even leading to a more federal system of governance – than any previous British government since the launch of the European Economic Communities in 1958. No, you have not misread the previous sentence. Nor have I taken leave of my senses. The UK government’s Conservative leaders, shocked by the depth of the financial and economic crisis which has overtaken the euro area, have made no secret of their belief that without much faster and deeper integration, the crisis can only get worse and eventually overwhelm countries within and without the euro area.
There is one important qualification which British political leaders also emphasise. Their remedy of accelerated and closer European integration is intended to apply to the euro area and any other EU states that want to follow suit, and is certainly not designed to apply to Britain itself! To the contrary, the overwhelming majority of the ruling Conservative party want Britain to negotiate a new, more peripheral membership with the Union, abandoning many of the UK’s existing commitments, for example on common EU social policies, justice and migration.
This goal of a peripheral Britain – part of the European single market – but essentially on the sidelines of European Union development, picking and choosing what it does and does not wish to be part of – does not satisfy the more hardline Eurosceptics (many of whom in reality are Europhobes). A rapidly growing minority of the party want to go further and leave the European Union lock, stock and barrel.
This depressing picture is not the whole story. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is growing rapidly in England and could be a potent threat to many Conservative Members of Parliament in the next UK general election in 2014. Given the full-blooded support of a large part of the Eurosceptic British media (some of it controlled by interests outside the UK), it is not surprising that opinion polls have shown a dispiriting but consistent trend in favour of partial and even total withdrawal from the Union.
From a European perspective, this is perhaps not the most worrying aspect of the British domestic situation regarding the EU. The past decade or two has seen an alarming erosion of the confidence of the pro-EU camp: and not only in the Conservative party. The opposition Labour Party is certainly opposed to a unilateral British exit from the Union, but it has long since abandoned the goal of participation in the euro or in almost any other aspect of closer European integration. Only recently the Labour Party in the House of Commons voted with anti-EU right wing Conservatives against the Cameron government’s support for a freeze rather than an outright reduction of the EU budget.
Within the Labour Party, some of the strongest supporters of a more social Europe – notably in the trade union movement – have fallen into dispirited silence as the economic and financial crisis has seen social justice relegated down the order of EU governments’ priorities. A similar somnolence has also overtaken the traditionally pro-European Liberal Democrats, in part because of their minority position in the coalition – and in part because they too lack confidence in making the European case.
All of this may be thought to be all the more odd, since none of the Eurosceptic political forces in Britain have any convincing or coherent alternative to offer for Britain outside the Union. Until recently there was much talk of a ‘Norwegian option’ – outside the EU but remaining part of the European Economic Area. But the UK lacks Norway’s massive oil reserves. It has also dawned on the sceptics that, in the EEA, Britain would still be subject to many aspects of EU regulation (notably of the single market) but without any role in decision-making. Less is now heard about this.
Some would rather advocate an agreement with the EU on the lines of the Union’s agreement with Switzerland. But such a bi-lateral agreement would involve Britain having to accept all EU regulations in the areas subject to the agreement. The banks and financial services in the City of London have taken a look at this and do not like what they see.
The Cameron government wants to avoid an “In/Out” referendum if at all possible. Instead they would like to see a “modulated” or “re-structured” agreement with the EU on the terms of its membership. Ironically they see the possibility for far-reaching changes to the governance of the euro area not only as necessary to prevent an economic catastrophe from overtaking all of Europe including Britain, but also as providing ideal grounds to secure a major change in the terms of British membership of the Union.
To get an idea of what British ministers have in mind, one could look at London’s declared intention of withdrawing from all its Treaty commitments concerning justice, crime and migration – while reserving the right to ‘opt back in’ on specific measures which appeal to the government in London. They also want out of some existing social agreements, notably those improving labour rights.
Aware that there is no appetite across the Channel for such a wholesale re-negotiation of the terms of UK membership, the government has made it clear that it will veto any of the measures proposed at EU level for closer integration in the euro area without a pledge to open negotiations with London on its demand for a semi-detached membership. Most immediately, a veto could be used to block any agreement which does not freeze the seven-year European Union budget. However, London does not fully understand that the effect of such a veto would be to introduce a series of annual EU budgets, with inflation adjustment – something which would fall short of an actual freeze.
The cold political climate in the UK for discussing Britain’s future in the EU could change for the better. Firm evidence that the euro-area crisis has been brought under control and that the current counter-productive obsession with ‘austerity’ is being replaced with a serious growth strategy would help. International pressure on London not to deepen its isolation within the EU should also not be ignored. The Obama Administration is already worried that London is no longer an effective intermediary with the EU on a range of foreign policy issues and is desperate to head off any UK withdrawal.
There is also naked economic self-interest. At present Britain exports more to its smaller EU neighbour, Ireland, than it does to China. Big business and sections of the City may intervene to head off a likely British ‘Grexit’. Outside the EU, the likely British economic strategy would be premised on a further massive devaluation of sterling to try and fire the engines of export-led growth. The result could be the further relative decline of the UK economy against the rest of Europe and the global economy.
But a more convincing case also needs to be put to British public opinion to see further European integration as a real opportunity to actively shape the future direction of the European Union and its policies. For that to happen, the Union is going to have to take radical and far-reaching steps to strengthen its system of democratic accountability.
An election of the Commission President – through the European Parliament elections next time – should help. But the direct election of a European President (perhaps by merging the offices of President of the European Council and the Commission) would make a bigger impact. Creating the circumstances for a real democratic choice about the direction of the EU would help kill off the constant Eurosceptic chorus about the so-called ‘unaccountable, unelected EU bureaucracy’.
A change of government in London in a few years’ time might help. Evidence that Scotland might actually realise its goal of independence within the EU could also act as a sobering influence on those with illusions about the UK’s own status within the Union and internationally. But most of all, pro-Europeans in Britain need the confidence to recover their voice and to expose the Eurosceptics for being like the vain king in Hans Christian Andersen’s story, who thought he wore invisible clothes – but in reality was naked."
John Palmer was a Founder and Political Director of the European Policy Centre. Before that he was for many years the European Editor of The Guardian. Author of several books on European affairs, he is a Visiting Practitioner Fellow at Sussex University European Institute and a member of the Council of the Federal Trust in London.
There is one important qualification which British political leaders also emphasise. Their remedy of accelerated and closer European integration is intended to apply to the euro area and any other EU states that want to follow suit, and is certainly not designed to apply to Britain itself! To the contrary, the overwhelming majority of the ruling Conservative party want Britain to negotiate a new, more peripheral membership with the Union, abandoning many of the UK’s existing commitments, for example on common EU social policies, justice and migration.
This goal of a peripheral Britain – part of the European single market – but essentially on the sidelines of European Union development, picking and choosing what it does and does not wish to be part of – does not satisfy the more hardline Eurosceptics (many of whom in reality are Europhobes). A rapidly growing minority of the party want to go further and leave the European Union lock, stock and barrel.
This depressing picture is not the whole story. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is growing rapidly in England and could be a potent threat to many Conservative Members of Parliament in the next UK general election in 2014. Given the full-blooded support of a large part of the Eurosceptic British media (some of it controlled by interests outside the UK), it is not surprising that opinion polls have shown a dispiriting but consistent trend in favour of partial and even total withdrawal from the Union.
From a European perspective, this is perhaps not the most worrying aspect of the British domestic situation regarding the EU. The past decade or two has seen an alarming erosion of the confidence of the pro-EU camp: and not only in the Conservative party. The opposition Labour Party is certainly opposed to a unilateral British exit from the Union, but it has long since abandoned the goal of participation in the euro or in almost any other aspect of closer European integration. Only recently the Labour Party in the House of Commons voted with anti-EU right wing Conservatives against the Cameron government’s support for a freeze rather than an outright reduction of the EU budget.
Within the Labour Party, some of the strongest supporters of a more social Europe – notably in the trade union movement – have fallen into dispirited silence as the economic and financial crisis has seen social justice relegated down the order of EU governments’ priorities. A similar somnolence has also overtaken the traditionally pro-European Liberal Democrats, in part because of their minority position in the coalition – and in part because they too lack confidence in making the European case.
All of this may be thought to be all the more odd, since none of the Eurosceptic political forces in Britain have any convincing or coherent alternative to offer for Britain outside the Union. Until recently there was much talk of a ‘Norwegian option’ – outside the EU but remaining part of the European Economic Area. But the UK lacks Norway’s massive oil reserves. It has also dawned on the sceptics that, in the EEA, Britain would still be subject to many aspects of EU regulation (notably of the single market) but without any role in decision-making. Less is now heard about this.
Some would rather advocate an agreement with the EU on the lines of the Union’s agreement with Switzerland. But such a bi-lateral agreement would involve Britain having to accept all EU regulations in the areas subject to the agreement. The banks and financial services in the City of London have taken a look at this and do not like what they see.
The Cameron government wants to avoid an “In/Out” referendum if at all possible. Instead they would like to see a “modulated” or “re-structured” agreement with the EU on the terms of its membership. Ironically they see the possibility for far-reaching changes to the governance of the euro area not only as necessary to prevent an economic catastrophe from overtaking all of Europe including Britain, but also as providing ideal grounds to secure a major change in the terms of British membership of the Union.
To get an idea of what British ministers have in mind, one could look at London’s declared intention of withdrawing from all its Treaty commitments concerning justice, crime and migration – while reserving the right to ‘opt back in’ on specific measures which appeal to the government in London. They also want out of some existing social agreements, notably those improving labour rights.
Aware that there is no appetite across the Channel for such a wholesale re-negotiation of the terms of UK membership, the government has made it clear that it will veto any of the measures proposed at EU level for closer integration in the euro area without a pledge to open negotiations with London on its demand for a semi-detached membership. Most immediately, a veto could be used to block any agreement which does not freeze the seven-year European Union budget. However, London does not fully understand that the effect of such a veto would be to introduce a series of annual EU budgets, with inflation adjustment – something which would fall short of an actual freeze.
The cold political climate in the UK for discussing Britain’s future in the EU could change for the better. Firm evidence that the euro-area crisis has been brought under control and that the current counter-productive obsession with ‘austerity’ is being replaced with a serious growth strategy would help. International pressure on London not to deepen its isolation within the EU should also not be ignored. The Obama Administration is already worried that London is no longer an effective intermediary with the EU on a range of foreign policy issues and is desperate to head off any UK withdrawal.
There is also naked economic self-interest. At present Britain exports more to its smaller EU neighbour, Ireland, than it does to China. Big business and sections of the City may intervene to head off a likely British ‘Grexit’. Outside the EU, the likely British economic strategy would be premised on a further massive devaluation of sterling to try and fire the engines of export-led growth. The result could be the further relative decline of the UK economy against the rest of Europe and the global economy.
But a more convincing case also needs to be put to British public opinion to see further European integration as a real opportunity to actively shape the future direction of the European Union and its policies. For that to happen, the Union is going to have to take radical and far-reaching steps to strengthen its system of democratic accountability.
An election of the Commission President – through the European Parliament elections next time – should help. But the direct election of a European President (perhaps by merging the offices of President of the European Council and the Commission) would make a bigger impact. Creating the circumstances for a real democratic choice about the direction of the EU would help kill off the constant Eurosceptic chorus about the so-called ‘unaccountable, unelected EU bureaucracy’.
A change of government in London in a few years’ time might help. Evidence that Scotland might actually realise its goal of independence within the EU could also act as a sobering influence on those with illusions about the UK’s own status within the Union and internationally. But most of all, pro-Europeans in Britain need the confidence to recover their voice and to expose the Eurosceptics for being like the vain king in Hans Christian Andersen’s story, who thought he wore invisible clothes – but in reality was naked."
John Palmer was a Founder and Political Director of the European Policy Centre. Before that he was for many years the European Editor of The Guardian. Author of several books on European affairs, he is a Visiting Practitioner Fellow at Sussex University European Institute and a member of the Council of the Federal Trust in London.
