| Open Europe |
Events
In order to widen the debate about the future of the EU, Open Europe will be organising events across Britain and Europe. To receive information about future events please sign up to receive our fortnightly bulletin.
Click on the links below to view Open Europe's events by year:
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
2011
“Will the German Constitutional Court put an end to Euro bailouts?”, 12 January 2011, Brussels
Speaking in Brussels at the invitation of Open Europe, German Professor Markus Kerber, the initiator of a lawsuit at the German Constitutional Court against the bailouts of Greece and Ireland, criticised the European Central Bank’s policy of buying government bonds.
To listen to an audio recording of the event click here.
He said that “if the ECB keeps on buying worthless government bonds, it will become a bad bank”, calling for the European Court of Justice to restrain the ECB. He complained that "the ECB is effectively helping Greece to obtain loans and is playing fire brigade for failing Irish banks. That's unacceptable". He added that “There should be more control on what the ECB does”. He described the ECB's buying of bonds on the secondary market as “illegal” saying “this is allowed on the open market in order to fine-tune monetary policy, but it's illegal if it happens because of fiscal considerations”.
On his lawsuit, he commented that “there was a cardinal violation of EMU rules”, referring to former French Europe Minister Pierre Lelouche's statement that the “Treaty was modified”. He explained that “in the German Parliament, a majority has approved the bailout, but a constitutional majority was needed. That is our most manifest argument: that the fundamental veto right of the German Parliament has been ignored by the German government. Unless the German Constitutional Court ignores its own rulings it will agree”. He referred to the Maastricht ruling of the German judges, saying it stated that “the German government is allowed to abandon its own currency, but only under the condition that the new currency will be as stable as the D-Mark. If that is not the case, the German government has the duty to leave the monetary union, it is explicitly stated.”
When asked whether the argument can be made that the bailouts are legal, because these only concern bilateral and multilateral agreements, he said, “My friend and colleague who defends the German government brings up the same argument. However, the ban on bailouts extends to both the European Commission and the Member States and sets the cornerstone principle that everyone is liable for its own risks. This is the ratio legis of the no bailout clause and it should be interpreted in this way. I'm sure that the Court will follow this reasoning”.
Kerber predicted that “the euro will fail. It's better to face that”. He proposed that some countries leave, noting that “Portugal probably needs a devaluation”. Responding to the question that such a devaluation would put major European financial institutions in jeopardy, he said: “Let politicians who claim that first prove how big the damage would be. We probably need to go through a few months of pain. In any case we should not keep on breaking the rules and let taxpayers pick up the bill for everything. Bondholders should be made responsible, as they should understand that sometimes there is risk with a profit, and sometimes there is risk without a profit.”
Commenting on the EU’s Franco-German ‘political motor’, he said that, “Most German politicians have no inside knowledge of French policy. France sees the EU as the extension of France. It always wants an exception. France sees itself as more sovereign than anyone else, for example when Sarkozy invited himself to the Ecofin.” He calls France “the great obstacle of fundamentally reforming the EU and EMU. With France, the reform of EU is impossible.”
2010
“The Government's EU referendum lock: Giving the key to Parliament and voters?”, 16 November 2010, London
Open Europe hosted a panel debate in London discussing the implications of the ‘referendum lock’ contained in the new European Union Bill tabled by the Government. The debate was chaired byJames Forsyth, Political Editor of the Spectator magazine.
To listen to an audio recording of the event click here.
UK Europe Minister David Lidington said that the European Union Bill “is providing for a referendum lock on any future initiative […] to transfer new competences from the United Kingdom to the European Union.” He argued that the Bill covers future EU Treaties as well as the so-called ‘ratchet clauses’ in the Lisbon Treaty, which could be used in future to extend the EU’s powers. He noted that every change to EU Treaties, however small or purely technical, will be subject to an Act of Parliament – even if it does not qualify for a referendum.
The Europe Minister went on to stress the importance of the ‘sovereignty clause’ established by the new Bill. He argued that the clause “writes in statutory form” that “there is only one reason why European law has direct effect and primacy in this country, which is because it is given that authority by an Act of Parliament.”
The Europe Minister concluded by saying that the ‘referendum lock’ will not get in the way of European cooperation. He argued that the EU “desperately needs to get away from interminable debates” about structures, institutions and Treaty amendments and should instead focus on boosting European competitiveness, for example.
David Rennie – the Economist’s Bagehot columnist – argued that the referendum lock is much more meaningful than UK eurosceptics may think. “It is the fate of the paranoid not to realise when they’re winning”, he said.
David pointed out that no referendum lock is ever going to be perfect. “Europe is a rolling continuous poker game”, he said, adding that future UK Governments may be forced to compromise with European counterparts on certain issues and may therefore not stick to the promise of a referendum on every transfer of powers to Brussels. However, he said that the way the proposal has been formulated “is very suggestive of a Government which actually wants something that looks like a functioning referendum lock.”
David also pointed out that “a UK referendum bill is a UK veto bill”, since any referendum on further transfers of powers to the EU is practically impossible to win in the UK. This, he said, would lead to a multi-speed Europe, with “Britain in the slow lane”.
Open Europe Director Mats Persson agreed that the referendum lock is “a serious piece of legislation” and that the ‘referendum lock’ will “make it much more difficult for politicians to hand over powers to the EU in future”. However, he noted that the Bill does not address the problem of the existing balance of power between the EU and the UK, which many people in Britain are unhappy with.
Mats also warned against some potential loopholes in the Bill, including the so-called ‘significance clause’, which he said would allow Ministers too much discretion in deciding what types of transfers of powers would trigger a referendum.
He noted that the referendum lock would not be able to address cases where control moves from Westminster to Brussels as a result of “integration by stealth” and when EU leaders take decisions with no basis in the EU treaties, such as in the case of the eurozone bail-out. Furthermore, he pointed out that the Bill should include a specific provision requiring the Government to seek approval from the Parliament before opting in to new EU rules on Justice and Home Affairs under the Lisbon Treaty.
Labour MP Kate Hoey said that regardless of how her party was going to react to the European Union Bill, the ‘referendum lock’ has to be seen as “a step forward,” adding that “for too many years we have failed to ask the people”. She argued that, had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty been held in the UK, today there would be no need for this European Union Bill, since UK citizens would have certainly voted against the Treaty.
However, Kate also said that she was concerned that the ‘referendum lock’ could fail to meet expectations. She argued that – due to a series of political dynamics which often intervene during negotiations at the EU level – the process of “ratcheting up” of EU influence in several policy areas may be almost impossible to stop. She concluded that the time was ripe for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.
“How does the euro-crisis affect Germany's relations with the EU?”, 26 October 2010, Berlin, Germany
Open Europe hosted a panel debate in Berlin in cooperation with the Bertelsmann Foundation, discussing how Germany’s relationship with the EU has been affected by the eurozone crisis. The debate was chaired by Deutsche Welle TV presenter Olaf Krieger.
Open Europe Vice-Chairman Derek Scott stressed that the eurozone crisis is not a matter of public finances but one of lost of competitiveness. He pointed out that the least expensive solution for Germany would be leaving the euro. The other two alternatives are either a severe depreciation of the euro, or a perpetual transfer of money to the deficit countries on the periphery of the eurozone. He described the notion that “without the euro, the EU cannot survive” as “blackmail”.
German Green MP Manuel Sarrazin said that Germany has benefited from the introduction of the single currency, but that continuous transfers of money from stronger to weaker eurozone countries made in the name of “European solidarity” are not a viable solution in the long term. He disagreed with the idea that Germany should leave the euro, saying that “a weak euro would be most dangerous”, but “one should either way be honest and tell people what the cost of keeping the euro is”.
Stefani Weiss of the Bertelsmann Foundation argued that the euro has a useful function, in the sense that economic output is now expressed in euros, as opposed to dollars, as in the past. She also stressed that it was important to show some solidarity among eurozone members.
German Liberal MP Frank Schäffler noted that “there is a misunderstanding in the concept of [European] solidarity” and that EU law is being broken “in a manipulative way” to support struggling eurozone countries. He also said that Greece will not regain competitiveness while it is in the “chains” of the euro, pointing out that “now we can see that tax income there is falling. Greece won't escape from the problem”. He stressed that Germany should defend its interests, and that it should insist on a “hard currency”.
British Labour MP Gisela Stuart, who was born in Germany, argued that “the evolution we've seen over recent years is that the political elite have pretended it can ignore market forces, and this is especially true for the monetary union project.” She stressed that Germany shouldn’t be shy in standing up for its own interests in the crisis, just as France has.
Answering the question of whether the financial crisis was responsible for the eurozone crisis, Derek Scott answered that “the financial crisis was caused by central banks keeping interest rates too low, but the Euro bubble added a credit bubble on top of everything else.”
"Change in direction or more of the same? EU policy under the new Government", 5 October, Birmingham
Open Europe hosted a debate at the 2010 Conservative Party Conference discussing the future of the UK's EU policy under the new Coalition Government. The debate was chaired by Open Europe's Director Mats Persson.
Europe Minister David Lidington said that "there will be obvious changes" in the Coalition's EU policy compared to its predecessor, highlighting the promise to give the public a referendum on further transfer of powers to the EU. The Europe Minister noted that this arrangement will make it more difficult for upcoming governments to transfer new competences to the EU.
He also stressed that the Government would try to grant Scrutiny Committees in the Parliament “as much access as possible to what’s going on” in terms of EU legislation in the pipeline. However, he added that this would be made “on a confidential basis” in order not to disclose the UK’s actual negotiating strategies and “red lines” on future EU legislative proposals.
Dominic Raab MP noted that the alliance with the Liberal Democrats has led to a dilution of the Conservatives’ EU policy, as the two parties seem to be “paddling in different directions” on several EU issues. He was particularly critical of the Government’s decision to opt in to the controversial European Investigation Order, which he said will put an enormous strain on UK police forces and will put at risk British citizens’ freedom.
He added that the proposal for a European Investigation Order lacks proportionality, since it even covers offences which are not considered crimes under UK law. Dominic encouraged the Government to think very carefully before opting in to future JHA measures, as “once we opt in, we lose any negotiating leverage”.
Bronwen Maddox – Chief Foreign Commentator of The Times – argued that more emphasis is likely to be put on EU policy, now that the UK has withdrawn its troops from Iraq and is going to do the same with Afghanistan. She suggested that the Coalition’s EU policy will forcedly be different, since after the sovereign debt crisis in the eurozone “what has really changed is Europe”.
Bronwen warned that the UK is “in no way out of the eurozone crisis”. She noted that claims that the ongoing crisis is not a British problem are completely out of touch with reality, due to the huge exposure of several major British banks to weaker eurozone countries’ debt obligations.
She also suggested that “transfer of money, rather than transfer of powers” is now the main issue in Europe, predicting that a fresh euro crisis will increase pressure on the UK to contribute to bailouts of debt-laden eurozone countries.
Fraser Nelson – Editor of The Spectator – said that the EU is something “the Government doesn’t really want to talk about”. He noted that in the UK there is a “massive disconnection” between what citizens and the political elite think of the EU, since according to recent polls 45% of the UK population is currently in favour of leaving the EU altogether, compared to no more than 3% of MPs. However, he suggested that the Government cannot go on to ignore this growth of anti-EU sentiment throughout the country.
Fraser also expressed criticism of the European Investigation Order, arguing that it will represent “a tremendous amount of extra hassle” for the UK police. He further noted that the UK will be the second-largest contributor to the EU budget over the next three years, without really getting anything in return.
There was consensus on the panel that the “lack of money” for governments across the EU offers the UK an opportunity to build up alliances with other member states – notably Germany – and push for a radical reform of the EU budget.
To listen to an audio recording of the event click here.
Posts
