The Spectator on the British government's approach to Brussels
No Prime Minister wants to do battle with the European Union, which is why it has accrued so much power in such a short space of time. When preparing for government, David Cameron was warned by the Civil Service that if he wanted to wrestle powers back from Brussels — as he has promised to do in party conference speeches — then it would absorb at least a year of his time in Downing Street. Since then, his approach has been to spend as little time as he can on the subject, hoping it will not appear on his political radar.
While he may well have no interest in Brussels, but Brussels has all too much interest in Britain. For years, the European Commission has envied the way that financiers from across the Continent gravitate towards London — and are, even now, generating billions in tax revenues to help close the deficit. The upside of Goldman Sachs giving an average £180,000 bonus to staff is that half of this sum will be handed to HM Treasury. Finding a way of making London less attractive to the financiers remains one of the European Commission’s main priorities.
All it needs from the British government is no resistance — and since Gordon Brown moved into 10 Downing Street, this is what it has had. Mired in his electoral woes, Mr Brown dropped his (previously formidable) opposition to EU meddling. One result was the proposed pan-European financial regulator. Rather than fight it, ministers accepted the sops being offered, such as the idea that the regulator would be in London rather than Frankfurt. What matters, alas, is not where the building is, but what goes on inside it.
The Spectator on the British government's approach to Brussels-2
Another power grab is looming. Plans are being drawn up for a European order that would mandate British police officers to follow requests lodged from overseas. Given that Britain is home to 1.5 million immigrants from other EU countries (twice as many as Brits living in the EU, according to Eurostat) this will place a disproportional burden on constabularies who are already facing budget cuts of 25 per cent. It is one thing to face a request from a Romanian police service, quite another to be forced to comply with their demands. And yet the British government’s response has been silence. Why? Each nation-state has found its own ways of dealing with Brussels. Many EU directives are ignored in France and Italy. The Germans do it by the book: five eminent academics recently filed a legal action against the proposed eurozone credit facility and aid package. Their complaint plausibly identifies several infractions against the German Constitution and other EU treaties. Yet from Britain, nothing but acquie-scence. The government has adopted a see-no-evil policy — knowing that there can be no such thing as a united Tory-Lib Dem policy on the subject. This coalition is a union of Eurosceptics and Euro-enthusiasts, so it remains mute on issues which demand that Britain has a strong national voice — not least because public opinion is now hardening against the EU. A recent Angus Reid poll shows that 51 per cent of the public says that, on balance, EU membership is bad for Britain. If ministers will not speak about Europe, MPs must. For example, a study might be conducted into whether Britain would be better off out of the EU given that our net payments have risen by almost a third this year, to £8.3 billion. What do we gain in return for this money? Is it, in this age of austerity, a cost we can afford? It is, surely, a subject of legitimate inquiry for a Select Committee.
Posts
