EU politics: decoupling from "little Europe"
Tuesday 15 January 2013
 He then reiterated his view, expressed previously, that it was not in our national interests to be in the Single Market like Norway: "just accept all the rules of the Single Market, pay for the privilege of being part of it and, as it were, be governed by fax rule". Thus do we see the perpetuation of the canard which the prime minister introduced into the debate last December, an issue that even the House of Commons Library is getting wrong. In its briefing note on "Norway's relationship with the EU", published yesterday, it wholly incorrectly declares that, "Norway has little influence on the EU laws and policies it adopts". This basic error arises from a failure to understand the way law is made, and a very limited view of the legislative process, where only the end stage is looked at. It is only at that end of the process, the tip of a huge iceberg, that finished law emerges - much, much more has gone on before the law reaches that stage. At the European Union level, the law includes the Directive, Regulation and Decision. The formal processes are well known and the procedures are open and visible. For instance, a Directive undergoing the co-decision procedure, requiring approval by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, will most often start its formal life as an official "communication" from the Commission, in what is known as the COM (final) series. This document will comprise a detailed explanatory narrative and the text of a proposed law. It will go before the European Parliament in a series of steps and, separately, through the Council of Ministers. Both bodies will agree their "common position" and, if there are differences between them, there are procedures by which they might be reconciled. At the end of the procedures, if successful, agreement will be reached by both parties and the approved text will be formally lodged in the Official Journal as law, thus becoming part of the acquis communautaire. A Directive will then require transposition by the legislatures of the Member States and the EEA members, to be implemented in those territories. Regulations, of course, take direct effect, and apply once they are "done" at Brussels. It is the nature of these formal processes which give rise to the claim that EEA members are subject to the so-called "fax democracy". They are not formally represented on the primary decision-making bodies, the Council and the Parliament, nor even the formal committees of the Commission, and thus are not able to vote on proposals. However, while this is the visible end, the greater part of the law-making process is diffuse, obscure and very often invisible. Thus there is not and cannot be any single mechanism for exerting influence, no single protocol and no single route, by which legislation is shaped. The situation is complex, nuanced and highly variable, exactly reflecting real life and the realities of politics – which are complex, nuanced and highly variable. Commentators who look at only part of the process, and in particular the visible, formal part of the law-making process managed by the European institutions, have thus come away with a completely false picture. Crucially, it must be appreciated that, in a global trading environment, most of the rules governing trade do not originate with the European Union. Increasingly, they are originated or agreed at higher levels, either at global or regional (supra-EU) level, through international treaty bodies. One of the most important is the World Trade Organisation (WTO), its mission being the supervision and liberalisation of international trade. It came into being on 1 January 1995 under the Marrakech Agreement, replacing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which goes back to 1948. The WTO, though, represents only the tip of a gigantic iceberg. Many of the standards-setting international bodies act under the aegis of the United Nations. Furthermore, trade orientated law is often supplemented by the work of international trade bodies and standards organisations. The output of these bodies has been termed "quasi-legislation". It is not law, per se, but is the root of law. To be implemented, it must be turned into legislation and bedded into an enforcement and penalty framework, the conversion of which is the job of regional bodies such as the EU and individual national states. Because of the international origin, and the output requires two bodies (at least) in the passage to law, it has been termed "dual-international quasi-legislation", abbreviated to "diqule". The reach of the diqule is phenomenal. For instance, the most important banking rules, governing the conduct of the international banks, emanate as "diqules" from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. International food standards are often initiated as diqules – which are then adopted regionally and locally. These are determined by the Codex Alimentarius. Other examples include agricultural issues, which are handled by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, taking the lead on matters affecting agriculture, forestry, fisheries and rural development. It also co-ordinates implementation of the 1992 Earth Summit's Agenda 21. Since disease knows no boundaries, animal health controls come from the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) – created in 1924. Traffic in protected species is regulated in the first instance by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). Human health standards and the controls and monitoring of infectious disease are determined by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Labour laws are devised by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) which was set up in 1919, by the Versailles Treaty . At a global level, environmental issues are determined and co-ordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Climate Change issues are agreed through the aegis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships is dealt with by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which came into being in the wake of the 1912 Titanic disaster and spawned the first international safety of life at sea - SOLAS - convention, still the most important treaty addressing maritime safety. Rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources, are dealt with by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Aviation the province of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), created in 1944, now comprising 191 members. It claims for its mission, safe, secure and sustainable development of civil aviation through the cooperation of its Member States. Under the aegis of IACO is the Air Navigation Commission, which considers and recommends, for approval by the ICAO Council, Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) for the safety and efficiency of international civil aviation. There is even an International Committee for Weights and Measures (abbreviated CIPM from the French Comité international des poids et mesures) consists of eighteen persons from Member States of the Metre Convention (Convention du Mètre) appointed by the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) whose principal task is to ensure world-wide uniformity in units of measurement by direct action or by submitting proposals to the CGPM. The General Conference on Weights and Measures (French: Conférence générale des poids et mesures - CGPM) is the senior of the three Inter-governmental organisations established in 1875 under the terms of the Metre Convention (Convention du Mètre) to represent the interests of member states. Initially it was only concerned with the kilogram and the metre, but in 1921 the scope of the treaty was extended to accommodate all physical measurements and hence all aspects of the metric system. In 1960 the 11th CGPM approved the Système International d'Unités, usually known as "SI". These global organisations are supplemented by regional bodies, such as the 56-member United Nations Economic Commission Europe (UNECE), which for historical reasons includes the United States. It is responsible, inter alia, for most of the technical standardisation of transport, including docks, railways and road networks. It also deals with the very detailed technical harmonisation of vehicle construction and safety standards. With UNEP, it administers pollution and climate change issues, and hosts regional agreements. Another important regional body, often forgotten in the shadow of the EU, is the Council of Europe. Against the EU's 27 members, it has a membership of 47 European countries. Over term, it has agreed 214 treaties including its own founding treaty and, most notably, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Then there are huge number of single-issue treaty and non-treaty bodies, which set standards or agreements, or influence the global agenda, from which rules emerge and which are then implemented by signatories directly, or via groups such as the European Union, the latter acting as a law processing factory on behalf of its Member States. Just one, and a rather arcane example of this type of body is the "Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety" (IFCS). This describes itself as "an alliance of all stakeholders concerned with the sound management of chemicals", claiming to be a global platform where "governments, international, regional and national organisations, industry groups, public interest associations, labour organisations, scientific associations and representatives of civil society meet to build partnerships, provide advice and guidance, and make recommendations". The IFCS thus describes itself as "a facilitator, advocates systemising global actions taken in the interest of global chemical safety". A more formal but equally arcane body is the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). was established by the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, provides a protection system for the intellectual property rights of plant breeders. The Convention was adopted in Paris in 1961 and it was revised in 1972, 1978 and 1991. UPOV's mission is "to provide and promote an effective system of plant variety protection, with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties of plants, for the benefit of society". Arcane though this might be, after the accession of the EU to the Convention in 2005, it is driving the EU agenda on the intellectual property rights on plants. Norway, incidentally, became a member on 13 September 1993, leading rather than following the EU. The rules produced by this plethora of international bodies are formalised long before they reach the EU institutions. When they are adopted by the EU and published as formal proposals by the EU Commission, it is invariably too late to make any changes. Any chance of influencing the rules by then has long gone. Most of such rules are passed by the Council and Parliament without a debate and without a formal vote. In the rare instances where there is a vote by the Council, it is by QMV, where it is difficult to block a measure. Even then, the rules themselves cannot be changed unilaterally by the EU. Where international agreements are involved, votes in Council can only reject or accept proposals. Yet these are the very rules which have already been agreed at a higher international level, negotiated by individual countries, on an intergovernmental basis, many of which can be vetoed at that level. That is where the influence counts. Thus, it is important to be involved at this stage, to shape the rules before they become formalised, at a stage when they can be shaped, advanced and even rejected. And it is this arena that Norway is fully involved. Not constrained by the "little Europe" of the 27-country European Union, it is able to operate as a fully-fledged global actor. Thus, the relationship between Norway as an EEA member and the EU is far from one of a supplicant to a greater power. Norway plays a very active part in the international community, and is heavily involved in the framing of international law, much of which is then adopted by the EU. While Norway often has freedom of action, as long as we are isolated in the EU – shackled to "little Europe" - we have less control than we would like over the formulation of these "diqules". Whether it is technical standardisation of transport requirements from UNECE, common banking rules from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, international food standards from Codex Alimentarius, the animal health requirements from OIE - or labour laws from the ILO - we usually defer to the "common position" decided by the EU. Decoupling from the EU and thus the process of political integration, and re-engaging with the international community, would allow us to restore our status and resume our proper role on the international stage, breaking free from "little Europe" and rejoining the world. That would place us alongside Norway which enjoys that freedom already. And that is the way to look at leaving the EU. We are breaking free of "little Europe" and rejoining the world. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 15/01/2013 |
EU Referendum: it may never happen?
Tuesday 15 January 2013
It is left to the Labour supporting New Statesman to pose the obvious question, as to whether there can be an EU referendum if David Cameron is not around as prime minister.
His pledge, says the magazine, is dependent on an outcome that increasingly few believe is likely: a Conservative majority at the next election. A reformation of the coalition would likely scupper any plans Cameron has to bring back major powers from Brussels. In addition, it muses, it is unclear how Cameron will respond if he proves unable to secure the changes he wishes to see. Taking the first point, the main point of the referendum offer, if it comes, is to neutralise the UKIP vote and bring its supporters back into the Tory fold. And if Mr Cameron does make a credible referendum offer, then UKIP supporters are going to have to think very hard about their voting intentions for the general election. As the polls stand, the UKIP support is greater than the difference between Conservative and Labour so, in theory, if all the UKIP supporters transfer to the Tories, this should be enough to win the general – especially as the "UKIP effect" has a disproportionate impact on marginal constituencies. Given that Ed Miliband has recently refused to consider a referendum on the EU, the last best chance of securing a withdrawal from the Evil Empire is through a Conservative success, which would effectively require UKIP to stand down. Subject to that important qualifier, as to whether the referendum offer is credible, UKIP faces the choice of whether to support Party or country – a choice they very often accuse the Conservatives of failing to make. If Party comes first, they might be responsible for preventing us from leaving the EU. Addressing the issue of what would happen if the "colleagues" refuse to negotiate, or the deal is not acceptable, Mr Cameron has to decide then on whether himself to support an exit, or whether to try to a bluff in the Wilsonian mould. Far too many people will spot a faux negotiation though, making it very difficult for Cameron to get away with a sham. But whether the "colleagues" care enough to help him out is moot. Like as not, they will do nothing to drag his electoral irons out of the fire, especially if the result is Ed Miliband, making the UK a referendum-free zone. As to whether Mr Cameron can prevail, forcing the negotiation issue, what he seems to forget is that, if it ever comes to a treaty revision, a convention would most certainly have to be set up. And while there is open access to the convention sessions, the UK would have no control over the outcome, and could not insist that its aspirations were taken into account. It would then be very difficult to throw a strop if the subsequent IGC took its cue from the convention, leaving and repatriation agenda high and dry, putting Cameron on the spot, having to veto the final draft of a treaty as his only recourse. That simply isn't practical politics. And even if Cameron and his advisors aren't trying to assess the ramifications of the different courses of actions available, others will be, especially the "colleagues", who are not going to allow themselves to bounced into junking hard-won treaty principles. Like it or not, therefore, the odds are that Cameron could be setting himself up for an accidental exit. But an exit, whether accidental or intentional, is still an exit, which might mean that we end up with rather a lot of accidental Conservatives. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 15/01/2013 |
EU politics: it's Friday
Monday 14 January 2013
 It says something of the lack of awareness that Cameron chose this date for his big speech, a timing which has been seen as something of a snub to the "colleagues". Whatever the prime minister's advisors are being paid, it is far too much. However, this at least means that the Sunday papers will have something positive to write about, instead of their endless speculation – and Booker will be able to tell us what the speech really means. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/01/2013 |
EU politics: the trouble with "Europe"
Monday 14 January 2013
 What it also reveals, though, is that Cameron, in common with many senior politicians and political journalists, is massively ill-informed about the nature of the European Union. He is thus hopelessly ill-informed on what is and is not possible to achieve in terms of negotiations. It is, therefore, useful to analyse some what we have been told, to see where exactly he has gone wrong. I will concentrate on three points: 1. Mr Cameron is "in favour of Britain's membership of the European Union" [because] "we're a trading nation" [and] " we need access to the Single Market". The essential error here is the belief [or implied assertion] that we need to be members of the European Union in order to partake in the Single Market. We do not. As has been rehearsed many times on this blog, membership of the EEA gives full access to the Single Market, without requiring membership of the EU. 2. "More than that", Mr Cameron believes that "we need a say in the rules of that market", and that also requires membership of the European Union. He goes on to say that it is [not] in our national interests to be in the Single Market like Norway: "just accept all the rules of the Single Market, pay for the privilege of being part of it and, as it were, be governed by fax rule". Norway is not governed by fax rule – to thus assert is fundamentally to misunderstand the way the rules of the single market are formulated. Here are a few guidelines: a. Much of the technical legislation comprising the Single Market is not formulated by the EU in the first place. In a global trading environment, increasingly it is agreed at a global level, either through trade bodies, standards organisations, or international bodies, many of them acting under the aegis of the United Nations. There are also the G-8 and the G-20 "summits" which can act as initiating bodies. b. Negotiations on rules invariably take many years. They are largely complete, and the rules formalised by the time they reach the EU institutions. By the time they are published as formal proposals, it is usually the case that it is too late to make any changes. Most of such rules are passed by the Council of Ministers without a debate and without a formal vote. In the rare instances where there is a vote, it is by QMV, where the UK is not able – on its own – to block a measure. c. Rules agreed at a higher international level are negotiated by individual countries, on an intergovernmental basis, many of which can be vetoed at that level. Thus, it is important to be involved at this stage, to shape the rules before they become formalised, at a stage when they can be blocked. d. The UK is a full member of most of the international bodies, in its own right. However, as a member of the EU, it often waives its right to be represented and to vote on measures. Instead, it accepts the "common position" agreed by EU members, and allows itself to be represented by the EU at international level. That is especially the case with the WTO, where the EU conducts negotiations on behalf of the UK. e. For Britain thus to step outside the "little Europe" framework of the EU is actually to restore its voice on the international stage, permitting it to express its own interests and take up its own negotiating positions. It can also initiate rules on its own account, without first having to seek EU approval, something which Norway is able to do and has done in recent times. 3. Mr Cameron believes that "powers should be able to flow backwards to nations as well as forwards to Brussels". One of the most sacred principles of the European Union is the monopoly of the right of proposal afforded to the Commission. By this means, no law can be removed from the acquis communautairewithout the agreement of the Commission, as law can only be repealed or amended by another law. Thus, lawmaking becomes a ratchet. Once power over an issue is assumed by the Commission, it is never returned. The reason for this is simple. The EU is not primarily (or at all) a trading body. It is a supranational organisation devoted to securing political union, with the chosen modus of using economic integration as a means of achieving political integration. Thus, the one-way flow of power is neither accidental nor negotiable. It is the very essence of the European Union. On this basis, the EU cannot and will not breach the principle of irreversibility. To do so would prejudice the very nature of the European Union, and comprise an existential threat. Negotiations aimed at achieving this end cannot possibly succeed. To achieve his aims, therefore, Mr Cameron must decouple trade from political union. This cannot be done from inside the European Union. He must invoke Article 50 in order to secure a new relationship whereby Britain is only involved in trade and allied issues, rejecting altogether political integration. To remain in the European Union is to remain committed to political union, where trade is secondary to this objective and is simply seen as a means of achieving political union. There are no half measures. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/01/2013 |
EU Politics: Cameron on Today
Monday 14 January 2013
JH: I don't expect you to give me the detail of your speech – you're not making it until next Tuesday. But can we just establish a few principles, broad principles, the sort of thing you've been talking about for a very long time now. You are in favour, or not, of a referendum?
DC: First of all, let's stand back. I'm in favour of Britain's membership of the European Union. We're a trading nation, we need access to the Single Market but more than that we need a say in the rules of that market. So I believe Britain does have a European future. But, frankly, there is a debate going on in Britain about our relationship with Europe. A lot of people are not happy, including me, with some of the nature of that relationship and I think there's an opportunity to get that relationship right. Why? Well because Europe is changing because of the single currency, so there are opportunities for us to make changes and when we make those changes what I've called a new settlement, we should make sure there's full-hearted consent for that settlement. I'll be setting out exactly how in my speech but I'm not against referenda. I've never said … JH: Are you in favour? DC: Yeah, I think in some cases I think in some cases particularly … JH: In this case? DC: The principle I think should be this: if you are fundamentally changing the relationship between Britain and Europe then you should be having a referendum. JH: And you've just said that relationship is changing so it follows therefore there will be a referendum and the questions that follows from that is, will it be a in-out referendum? That's what people expect. DC: Of course. You have to wait for the speech for the full details, but obviously … JH: But you're not ruling that out, at this stage? DC: Obviously, I want to give people a proper choice. What I don't favour, and this is important – if we had an in-out referendum tomorrow or very shortly, I don't think that would be the right answer for the simple reason that I think we'd be giving people a false choice because right now I think there a lot of people who say, well I'd like to be in Europe but I am not happy with every aspect of the relationship so I want it to change. That is my view. So I think an in-out referendum today is a false choice. JH: And if it doesn’t change, are you prepared to go that bit further – rather a lot further and say, therefore, I think we should leave and we will have a referendum that gives the British people the choice of in or out? DC: Well as I've said, I'm in favour of our membership of the European Union and I'm also optimistic and confident that we can achieve changes in the European Union to make sure that Britain feels more comfortable with our relationship with Europe. I'm confident that we can do that. JH: Well an awful lot of people are not and George Osborne, the Chancellor, has said in order that we can remain in the Union, I quote, 'the Union must change'. DC: Yes, I think it does need to change … JH: Do you go along with that? DC: Yes, of course, and it is changing. There is an enormous thing happening in the European Union today which is the single currency, which we are not a member of and we're not going to join as long as I'm prime minister, is driving a process of change in Europe. Y'know, when I became Prime Minister two-and-a-half years ago, a lot of people said to me, well one thing you won't have to deal with is more treaty changes. They'e just had the Lisbon Treaty, you won't have any more treaty changes. Well we've had three proposed already in the last two-and-a-half years. So Europe is changing and the opportunity for us to lead those changes, and make changes and make changes that will make our relationship with Europe more comfortable I think are absolutely there, so I'm confident we can do that and, as I say, a fresh settlement, and then fresh consent for that settlement. I think that's the right approach and those who say this is very dangerous, you’re putting at risk the relationship with Europe, you're putting at risk our position with regard to business, I don't agree with that because the fact is that this debate is happening anyway. So we have a choice as politicians. Do you get out there, lead that debate, make the changes that will be right for Britain and I would argue, right for Europe, and then give people a choice about that, or do you kind of stick your head in the sand and hope the whole debate is going to go away? It isn't going to go away. There are two reasons for that. One is what's happened in terms of the single currency, which I've explained. And frankly the second reason is that the British public feel increasingly fed up that they've been left out of this debate. You know, they've been promised by both frankly governments and oppositions opportunities to vote in referenda or whatever, and then those opportunities have been taken away from them. I think the public are increasingly fed up with that, so we need both to take advantage of the change that's happening anyway in Europe and then also make sure the British public are properly and fully consulted. JH: You're striking a slightly different note from that which allegedly – you can confirm or deny it - you've struck in the past, at least in private, and that is that we'd be mad to leave Europe, that's what the, er … DC: Don't, don't believe everything you read in the newspaper … JH: So that's not true, you've never said that … ? [interruption] Hang on, let's be clear about that. Did you or did you not ever say we'd be mad to leave Europe? DC: I don't think its in our interests to leave the European Union. JH: Right, we'd be mad to leave it … DC: Look, I choose my words carefully. I don't, look … If you're saying to me would Britain sort of collapse if we left the European Union, no, of course not. You could choose a different path. The question is, what's in our national interests. And I've always been very clear. Its in our national interests as a trading nation to be in the Single Market but not like Norway – just accept all the rules of the Single Market, pay for the privilege of being part of it and, as it were, be governed by fax rule … JH: Its hard to see another alternative to that really … DC: Well let's look at our relationship now. We're not in the single currency and yet we're full members of the European Union. We're not in the Schengen no-borders agreement, which others are members of … [interruption] so the idea that everyone in Europe has to do everything at the same speed and the same way I think is wrong … JH: But you’re now saying that there are things going on of which we do not approve, even though we had notionally signed up to them. If they will not change things the way we want them to change, we will leave the club. That's effectively what you're saying, isn't it? DC: I don't put it like that … [interruption] What I think you're ignoring John is that Europe is changing. The single currency, because in order to have a working single currency you need elements of a banking union and a fiscal union, you need to make changes, and because not everyone in Europe is going to join the single currency and we certainly are not, Europe needs change. And as it needs change we can take advantage of that in terms of leading the debate ourselves, and I think we'll have allies on some of the things that we propose. The idea that powers should be able to flow backwards to nations as well as forwards to Brussels. Other leaders in Europe have been making that argument as well. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/01/2013 |
EU politics: barking cats reprise
Monday 14 January 2013
 This is a man who, unfortunately, is displaying his lack of grounding in the history and nature of the European Union. It is necessarily "bossy" because it is our supreme government. And supreme governments "do" bossy because that's what supreme governments do. We are back, therefore, to the type of wishful thinking that spawns barking cats, the object of a commentary by Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, and his wife Rose in a 1973 analysis of the reform of the US FDA. Referring to calls for reform of this institution, they offered the best explanation of why it cannot succeed and why, therefore, it cannot be real, an analysis which applies equally to the European Union. They argued: What would you think of someone who said, "I would like to have a cat provided it barked"? Yet your statement that you favour an FDA provided it behaves as you believe desirable is precisely equivalent. The biological laws that specify the characteristics of cats are no more rigid than the political laws that specify the behavior of governmental agencies once they are established.In other words, if organisations are set up in a certain way, their behaviour is pre-ordained and no more able to change than a cat can bark. What the history of the European Union tells us is that is was set up in a certain way, to do certain things. It embodies at its core the supranational Commission. All the other institutions were designed in such a way that they would either present no challenge to the supremacy of the Commission, or help it in its task of acquiring power. Given the structure and relationships of the institutions, as indeed do dogs bark and cats meow, so does the European Union necessarily act in the manner it does. That is what it was designed to do. The point is, of course, that if you did manage to change the European Union, making it conform more closely to your own desired specifications, it would no longer be the European Union. It would be something else, something completely different. It would no longer be a cat. It would become a dog. And that, the "colleagues" will never allow. They like their EU just as it is. Thus, when – as he has done on ITV's Daybreak television programme today - he calls for powers to "flow backwards as well as the other direction", Mr Cameron fails to understand the fundamental institutional biology. Power in the EU flows in only one direction because that is what it was designed to do. If you had a two-way flow, it would no longer be the European Union. Whether, as Mr Cameron says, he is "not happy" with the EU and that powers must be repatriated if the UK is going to remain a member, is neither here nor there. The UK cannot have its cake and eat it – we cannot repatriate powers and remain a member of the European Union. This simply cannot be done.
When, and only when, Mr Cameron understands this can we have a proper debate about "Europe". Anything else is just noise.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/01/2013 |
EU politics: hammering it out
Monday 14 January 2013
Offhand, I cannot recall a torrent of EU publicity of such intensity, running for so long, directed at the withdrawal issue. No one can say that this is no longer an agenda item, bringing the scaremongers out in full force.
Latest in the long list of recruits to these ranks is Danny Alexander, the Lib-Dem Treasury Secretary and full time europhile. But, in the considered opinion of this man, no responsible leader could "contemplate" leaving the European Union, an interesting development. You will note that the offence here is to "contemplate" – now we're not even supposed to think about leaving. It is also interesting to see how the 'philes are quick to invoke "national interest", with Alexander asserting that this – i.e., europhilia – should "trump party political difficulties". At the heart of his pitch, though, is fear. "I just think that any responsible British politician should not be contemplating British exit from the EU given how serious the consequences should be", he says. So there you are – think of the consequences, but whatever you do, don't even think of leaving. Fortunately for Cameron, he is not entirely on his own with the chief executive of the retailer Next,Lord Wolfson telling the prime minister that although the UK should remain part of the EU it had nothing to fear from being in the "slow lane". Britain should stay in Europe, he says, "but only on the right terms". We also see the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), which represents many smaller firms, falling into line with the Cameron line, agreeing that EU membership should be renegotiated. However, coming up fast on the other side of the track is Eric Pickles, another cabinet minister whois saying that we have to up sticks and leave. This is on the back of Mr Cameron apparently deciding to reject "nuclear" proposals that are to be outlined by the Fresh Start group of MPs this week – allowing for certain proposals to be vetoed. And now we also get an intervention from George Eustice, who says of Fresh Start: "We have put forward a wishlist which we think is a helpful contribution to the debate. The government has a difficult job in deciding what it can achieve in the negotiations. Putting constructive ideas on the table is preferable to the alternative of everyone obsessing about a referendum on leaving the EU". The man, for once, isn't totally wrong, as there are still a number of Conservative MPs – Bill Cash being one – who want to see an immediate referendum, to give Cameron a mandate to negotiate. Simply, that isn't going to fly, which means that the debate is solidifying without reaching a conclusion. Some are thus arguing that we need to hammer out a change in the terms of the debate, and the vocabulary. Instead of talking about leaving, for instance, the view is emerging that we should instead be talking about "decoupling" trade from political integration. And for this, it just happens that Article 50 is the most appropriate mechanism. Unless someone can come up with such means, to break the logjam, Cameron's "Europe" speech is heading for disaster. The race is on for a magic bullet. COMMENT THREAD |
Posts
