The Tories’ European Policy Mess
When will we Brits ever learn? The EU is made up of 27 member states, the majority of whom and indeed, sometimes the totality have to agree on anything it does. The EU is not made up of the UK and 26 supporting acts. Most people would regard that as a statement of the obvious. Yet, to listen to some British politicians speak you do wonder if they have grasped that point.
The latest to indulge in this brand of egomania is David Cameron. He is trying to get himself off the referendum hook he impaled himself on when he needed Tory right-wing support for his leadership bid. He now talks about treaty changes and the repatriation of powers blithely ignoring the fact that it takes 27 to tango. As the Tory Peer, Lord Willoughby de Broke put it so wonderfully in 2004: “Expecting to renegotiate the EU treaties on our terms is like going to McDonald’s and ordering lobster thermidor, it would be nice to have it but it is not on the menu”. That would be even truer today given how shell-shocked the member states are after years of treaty negotiations.
Of course, most of Cameron’s proposals are little more than window-dressing with no real significance. He intends to have a UK sovereignty bill making it clear that “ultimate authority stays in this country, in our parliament”. Well, yes… and that is true now. This sovereignty bill will not in any way alter the crucial fact that where member states have agreed to act, EU law takes precedence over domestic laws.
Cameron is particularly concerned about what he calls ratchet clauses which are more generally known as passerelle clauses. These are where on certain issues, particularly concerning justice and home affairs, it is possible to move from unanimous decision making to majority voting without a new treaty. He wants parliament to have control of these. Yet, the Government negotiated a “triple lock” requiring unanimity in council, majority approval of the European Parliament and the right of any national parliament to veto before any changes can be made. So, how is Cameron’s policy different? Equally he talks of greater protection of the UK’s criminal justice system, yet the Government has already secured the right to opt into criminal justice measures only if we think they are in our interest.
This act of creating paper dragons in order to slay them as a way of saving face reminded me of Harold Wilson’s renegotiation of British membership terms in 1974-75. I therefore re-read the relevant section of Hugo Young’s excellent book “This Blessed Plot” and immediately found a quote from our then Ambassador to the EU, Michael Palliser: “It soon became clear to me that the whole exercise was to keep Britain in, and get something that could be presented to the British as politically adequate”. This appears to be Cameron’s objective.
Member states are of course very familiar with the process of drawing up cosmetic political declarations to keep one country or another happy. So Cameron’s proposals could be dismissed as a harmless face saving exercise. Yet, that would be a mistake. In Wilson’s case it is clear from Young’s account that other member states shepherded by Helmut Schmidt were prepared to jump through any number of hoops to keep Britain on board. I doubt that is true today because 26 counties are harder to deal with than 8 and there is huge negotiation fatigue among member states. More importantly, I would argue that Britain no longer has the goodwill that it enjoyed in 1974. Other countries are irritated by our constant agonies of euro self-doubt and our demands for opt-outs. What is more, Cameron has deliberately antagonised his Conservative allies by withdrawing from the EPP and so it is difficult to see Angela Merkel playing the same role that Helmut Schmidt played.
Cosmetic declarations therefore would be fine, but treaty changes such as withdrawing from the Social Chapter would be a very different matter. So what happens if the other countries refuse to play ball? Are we then on the road to withdrawal?
Equally worrying, is the trap Cameron has set himself with his promise of referenda on any further transfer of sovereignty. The imminent accession of Croatia would self-evidently involve a dilution of sovereignty. Would Cameron want to have a referendum on this when he says he is in favour of enlargement? It would be a very dangerous game.
If he became Prime Minister Cameron would have a battle to keep his right-wing rabid anti-Europeans like Daniel Hannan under control. The danger for him is that Europe would dominate his premiership as it did the latter years of Margaret Thatcher and the whole of John Major’s term of office. The danger for Britain would be more fundamental. Cameron would be distracted from the real challenges ahead and his clever face saving formulas could lead us almost by default into withdrawal from the EU
It is not face saving formulas he would need, but sensible realistic policies. That is no evidence yet that he has such policies.
loading...
I am sorry to say this but, after listening to all this eurosceptic onslaughts for all these years, and for the sake of all the other Member states, please have a referendum whether the UK should lwithdraw from the Union according to Article 50 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union. I hope that , after a broad national debate about the advantages and disadvantages, a majority of the British people can be convinced to vote for Britain to stay in the Union. But if they want to leave, so be it.
loading...
Martin – Any such referendum would be doomed from the start , because the voters have been both starved of accurate information on what the EU is and what it does, and have been fed misinformation and even downright lies instead. For years. How do you change such pre-programmed mindsets?
The UK needs the EU, regardless of trade considerations, and the EU really does find the UK a worthy, if unwilling member. If, as Gary suggests, Cameron is “being pragmatic” (ie being a politician) then so be it. Maybe that won’t stop the anti-EU media but it will maintain the UK within the EU.
loading...
The UK is a worthy and important member without any doubt. And I would love Britain to play a critical and constructive role. But what Cameron has done both by creating this new group in the ÉP as well as trying to convince Klaus to vote against the Lisbon treaty *after* Britain has ratified it shows an erratic idelological politician, not a pragmatic one. I just fear Thatcher all over again, and Europe is much too weak right now to have another Thatcher-type politician banging on it. So I am not sure if with this leadership Britain would do more good than damage to the Union.
loading...
A Conservative government under David Cameron woud indeed isolate Britain in the EU and damage bilateral relations with its European partners significantly.
At the same time it is worth pointing out that the ‘New Labour’ government has failed in its historic mission to move Britain closer to Europe. Tony Blair’s ambition to turn the UK into a ‘bridge’ between European and American interests was quickly abandoned when he decided to side with the unilateralist US foreign policy goals of George W. Bush.
Neither Blair nor Brown have made any efforts to put a positive case for British engagement in the EU to the British public and they have failed to lead the debate on the economic benefits of entry into the eurozone. The Murdoch press is hence allowed to promote its anti-EU agenda relatively unchallenged, which has resulted an increasing level of Euroscepticism amongst the British public.
It remains to be seen if the Labour Party rises to the challenge to make the case for British engagement in the EU in future and credibly challenges the Eurosceptic position of Cameron’s Conservatives.
loading...
I think that Christian makes a very fair point. The argument for Britain’s full engagement in the EU has been lost by default so far. It is rare to hear an authoritative voice raised asserting the value of the European project in British public discourse. I even heard Jon Snow on Channel 4 News this evening making a gratuitious and ill-informed negative comment about the selection of the president of the European Council. If respected and otherwise knowledgable commentators like Mr Snow are infected with this europhobic malaise, the case for Britain in Europe is in very serious trouble indeed.
There is a widely-felt weariness across Europe at the semi-detached and carping attitude of British politicians to Europe (of all parties) and I’m sure that many would welcome an IN/OUT referendum in Britian. However, there is nevertheless a strong realisation that the EU needs Britain as much as Britain needs the EU. Such a referendum in the current poisoned climate would run huge risks of Britain exiting the EU at a catastrophic cost to its own people and indeed to the rest of us.
It is clear that a new campaign, widely supported in civil society and very assertive in its support for Britain’s continuing particiupation in the EU is required. Is there anyone in Britain preprared to take this task on?
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin (personal capacity)
loading...
Talking to people I do of various cultural back-grounds living in Britain today, many echo the same thing. The politicians have deliberately acted against the best interests of the people of Britain. Many feel betrayed and who can blame them. So easy to be glib when your in the hub of your political offices without having an idea or care for that matter as to what the people of Britain think feel or want. No longer will PR or Spin satisfy the voter. What might the principals of high office be? Enlighten us do.
‘The Seven Principles of Public Life [or Nolan Principals] are:-
Selfessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
Integrity – Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity – In carrying out public buisness, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropiate to their office.
Openness – Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty – Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership – Holders of public office should promote and support these principals by leadership and example.
Does this not apply throughout government. Treson if upheld would make null and void all decisions the Labour government have made to date.
As a humble simple person I ask on behalf of the people I know survivors of sexual abuse in childhood who have been betrayed by the Law some never reach 21 as they commit suicide. Victims of other horrendous crimes to many to name. We demand the punishment fits the crime. The elderly vulnerable sick dying . What have decades of our families worked hard for? Many paid with their lives in the hope of building a better future for future generations to be cared for.
‘FROM THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE.’
HOW MANY MORE BETRAYED FROM THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE?
These following stories tell of some of the injustices of law both National European & Other.
See Justice4Kate.com Justice For Carly.com See Abduction & Abuse of Children In Britain & Global.
Persecution of an Egyptician gentleman one Saad Elmohamadi Awaad Abdel Halim in the UAE.
Behind a facade of Human Rights many atrocities are committed which must be exposed to the world
HUMAN RIGHTS WITHOUT ACTION IS DEAD.
loading...
Bronwen, much as I understand (and appreciate) your view of the way politicians have that “misled” the British public on the EU, I ask you to consider what I put in my earlier post.
I returned last week from a visit to England (ie not including Wales, Scotland, or NI). From my online activities I was prepared for the almost complete misunderstanding of what the EU is and what it is about on the part of the general public I spoke to. However, I was quite unprepared to see and hear politicians of all parties saying things about the EU that were factually incorrect, or even untrue.
So far as the other injustices you quote are concerned, I cannot comment. I do note, though, that the UK (in signing the Lisbon Treaty) has obtained a special opt-out of the human rights attachments.
NB most nation states in the world, and the EU itself have rightly been condemned for hypocrisy over their abuse of human rights. This not a statement supporting such hypocrisy but simply one of fact.
loading...
PS I must add that, for so long as there are people willing to speak out (and push for action) against human rights abuses then there is still hope. Amnesty International would welcome support.
loading...