Eurocrash: EU membership - what if no one wanted us to stay?
Sunday 9 September 2012
 Always reluctant to report on EU issues, this means the coverage of "Europe" has been slight. Because of the focus on the euro, such that there is has been heavily biased by the economics, and largely ill-informed. However, not only the media but euroscepticism seems to have taken a break over the summer, relying on the complacent supposition that the euro will collapse, bringing down the whole project. All eurosceptics have to do – or so the unspoken assumption goes – is bide their time. Soon enough, the EU will cease to be and patriotic Englishmen can pick up the pieces where they left off – many dreaming of returning to a UK locked in some rosy, nostalgic period approximating to the early-50s when Morris Minors roamed the planet and Churchill was still prime minister. The strong expectations of a euro collapse certainly looked justified from events earlier this year and, with the torrent of often hostile media coverage in the German press, by mid-August, when Bookerwrote about the subject, it certainly looked as if it would be Germany that precipitated the fall. Now, I don't suppose the German media is any more accurate in representing what Germans think than is our media about us – any more than opinion polls accurately reflect the subtleties of public mood. Thus, in trying to divine the mood of what to is a very foreign country, all one can hope to do is as accurately as possible, reflect what a wide range of media is actually saying. And, with that in mind, things look very different from what they did even a month ago. Not only does the survival of the eurozone look possible, but the EU itself could emerge from its recent traumas much strengthened and closer to its ultimate goal of European political integration. That much can be inferred (with very little difficulty) from the latest poll data published by Die Welt, which has a clear majority of 57 percent in favour of "more common policy" in the EU. In March, the figure was 58 percent, only slightly higher. However, in what appears to be a contradiction, 50 percent of the Germans polled rejected the idea of the ECB buying government bonds. Only one in eight (13 percent), supported their acquisition, although a bout a third of respondents said they could not judge the matter. In this poll also, Merkel remains the most popular politician, enjoying a personal approval rating of 61 percent – although this is seven points less than in July. And second in line is arch-europhile Wolfgang Schäuble on 60 percent. These findings are very much in line with earlier polls, suggesting that, despite the torrent of media comment, sentiment has changed very little. Such antipathy as does exist in Germany is directed not towards the EU but mainly at bailing out the peripheral eurozone members. With a new treaty now a distinct possibility, one must take a view from this end of the tunnel that, if asked to approve it, the Germans would respond positively. It seems unlikely that we can rely on the Germans to bring even the euro crashing down, much less the EU itself. From the British eurosceptic viewpoint, though, this is not necessarily all bad. A new treaty driving further integration in the eurozone could, in the opinion of Julian Priestley, a prominent europhile, speed up the process of gradual disengagement which he asserts is already underway. 
Priestley (pictured above) has been at the centre of things EU for a considerable while, having been secretary-general of the European Parliament from 1997 to 2007. He now chairs the board of EPPA, a Brussels-based public affairs company, and sits on the boards of Notre Europe, the Paris-based think-tank, founded by Jacques Delors.
As did we, he thought the FCO review of the balance of competences between the UK and the EU to be highly significant. To this, he adds a tendency for Britain to be on the losing side in the EU Council, having lost around one-third of all vote since 2011.
These developments, on top of the refusal to participate in the Fiscal Stability Treaty agreed in March 2012, in Priestley's view, defines the coalition government's "so-far fairly measured policy of disengagement from Europe".
This could accelerate, he says, if an IGC is convened shortly, although will results that will force increased isolation. Britain is increasingly losing the support of its natural soul mates in East and Central Europe, nearly all of whom remain outside the euro and who have generally shared a more eurosceptic approach than the federalist core.
The UK attitude, Priestley asserts, is now widely perceived as obstructive, insensitive to the needs of others and unwilling to contribute to finding generally accepted solutions to the euro's problems which are considered to be in the interests of all, both those in the euro or outside.
Says Priestley, this in turn will make any significant treaty change repatriating powers to the UK the tallest of orders. He thus asks, which other member states would now go out on a limb to support Treaty change to enable the UK to opt out of a range of EU policies (like health and safety legislation, consumer rights, environmental standards which the UK's partners consider to be an integral part of the internal market)?
What, just a few years ago, might have been an argument which Britain could have been won at Council, he says, now looks a lost cause because most of the 26 appear to have lost patience with Britain.
Any recourse to "hardball" - refusing to accept future treaty change - would look to many like a rerun of a bluff already called at the end of last year when the majority carried on negotiating a budgetary pact but outside the framework of the EU treaties.
So it is that Priestley asserts that no other member state would wish to complicate steps towards a fiscal union and the strengthening of euro governance with a detailed examination of where under existing EU competences further opt-outs for one member state might be tolerable. Embarking on this process risks irritating further the UK's partners and ratcheting up the relative isolation of the UK government.
Currently, the policy of unpicking the acquis, of furrowing an ever more solitary course in Council, and the perceived obstructionism of the UK over more radical reforms of the Union, he further adds, runs the serious risk that the will of his partners to help Cameron and his government to find even a figleaf to justify his staying in the Union may start to evanesce.
And, concludes Priestley, if the other member states cease to care very much if the UK remains in the Union, then the Cameron will find it even harder to persuade his compatriots, let alone his backbenchers, to support the UK staying in.
There lies the view of an unreformed europhile. It begs some interesting questions, ones that are rarely posed – especially the question of whether the "colleagues" will continue to want Britain as a member of the EU. Indifference, graduating to outright hostility, could be the game changer. We could end up leaving because no one wants us to stay.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 09/09/2012 |
Booker: the "unknown" minister
Sunday 9 September 2012
The saga of Owen Paterson continues, with a broadside from Geoffrey Lean in his column yesterday, another snipe in The Observer and then a counterblast from Booker today.
However, despite assertions to the contrary, the appointment of the "pragmatic" eurosceptic Paterson – who is also extremely sound on climate change and many other issues, not least fishing- can hardly reflect a U-turn on the part of David Cameron. The reshuffle, for instance, has also put in place the arch-greenie David Heath, who was at one time parliamentary consultant for the WWF.And, as his right hand "person", Paterson also has for a permanent secretary Bronwyn Hill who is probably every normal person's idea of a nightmare for a lead civil servant in such an important department. One does not anticipate a meeting of minds. As to the real reason for his appointment, Booker points out that the brief Paterson has been given is to revive Britain's hard-pressed rural economy, in the hope of reviving the flagging Tory vote in the shires. Defra is one of the departments most dominated by EU law, from agriculture, fishing, water, waste and the environment generally, so there is very little Paterson can do in these areas, without first seeking either treaty change, or departure from the European Union. And, in the short-term, neither is going to happen. Nevertheless, according to Booker - who has spoken to the new secretary of state several times over the last few days - Paterson is intent on bringing about the most radical shake-up in Defra's orientation for decades. But, says Booker, if he fails in this, he will at least have demonstrated where those problems lie, which are in so many ways constraining the lives of all those affected by its vast range of activities. Such fireworks aside, there is in fact an extremely important reason why Paterson should be in place in Defra, for which he is admirably qualified and for which he is absolutely the right man. Readers will recall that, in early July, William Hague launched a "full audit" of EU law and the UK, under the title: Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union. As a precursor to either renegotiation (unlikely), or part of a process of gradual disengagement from the EU, which one arch-europhile thinks is already happening, Hague thought it "the right time to take a critical and constructive look at exactly which competences lie with the EU, which lie with the UK, and whether it works in our national interest". This, he said back in July, "will be a thorough and analytical piece of work, involving many Government Departments and taking evidence from representatives from business and other interest groups, the British public and our EU and global partners". Hague went on to tell us that he wanted to "take stock of the impact of the EU on our country based on a detailed assessment of those things that derive from EU law that affect us in the UK". This extensive piece of work, he added, "has never been attempted before – and it will take time to do well". It will, he said, "provide a profound analysis of what our membership of the EU means now and for our future. It will ensure that our national debate is grounded in knowledge of the facts and will be a vital aid for policy making in Government". There are few things once would leap up to applaud of this government, but this is one of them. For too long, the EU debate has been tired and stale – and it has always lacked hard-edged facts to inform the argument. Thus, it is important that we have this "profound analysis", and it is vitally important that it is done well. With a europhile in change of Defra, one can imagine how lukewarm the contribution from Defra might be. But with Paterson in charge, we have a man who can ensure that the exercise is done thoroughly, honestly, and in great detail – for a department which is so embedded in the EU that is a virtual branch office of Brussels. For once, therefore, circumstances have conspired to put the right man in the right place at the right time. And if Owen Paterson achieves nothing else during his tenure than to produce this audit in a way we would want and expect, it will be enough. We can only hope that he succeeds. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 09/09/2012 |
Posts
