skip to main |
skip to sidebar
How credible will David Cameron's EU speech be?
In advance of the Prime Minister's long-awaited EU speech tomorrow morning, the DM has an article today on Public Service Europe looking at the credibility of his EU policy.
The article as published is reproduced below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Wednesday, David Cameron is to finally deliver his much-anticipated
speech setting out his position on the renegotiation of some of the
European Union's powers, bringing them back to Westminster and on
holding a referendum. The prospect of the British prime minister making a
statement about the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU has
sparked a flurry of comment about whether or not Britain should
renegotiate its membership of the union and, if so, which powers the
country should seek back.
Cameron's every word is likely to be pored over by pressure groups on
both sides of the debate and, not least, by a large number of his own
backbenchers. They are looking for a clear indication that the
Conservative Party leader shares their concerns about the EU's powers
and will give them a popular referendum pledge with which to fight the
next election. But there is one question it seems certain that the
speech will not answer and, unfortunately, it is the question on which
the entire credibility of Cameron's EU policy and the prospect of a
referendum depend.
Beyond the desirability of renegotiation, which has so far been the main
focus of debate, how feasible is it that Cameron will secure the
necessary agreement of other member states to a renegotiation and a
return of European powers from Brussels to Westminster? If the prime
minister intends to make a referendum pledge dependent on his view of a
positive outcome from such discussions, few will take seriously the idea
that they will get the chance to give 'fresh consent' to Britain's
links with Brussels - unless the process by which negotiations will take
place is made clear.
There are only three methods by which treaty amendment discussions can
be launched and Cameron's difficulty is that two of them require the
cooperation of the 26 fellow member states. The prospects of this
happening are looking increasingly bleak. In recent weeks, prominent
figures including Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore, Polish
Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski and Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti
have lined up to denounce the idea that any single country should be
permitted to revise its membership of the EU.
French President Francois Hollande's comments after December's meeting
of the European Council summed up the mood. "I think the treaties are
there to be abided by," he said. "Europe isn't a Europe where
competences could be withdrawn." Where, in this, does Cameron believe
lies the support he needs to negotiate, never mind secure agreement to, a
return of powers to Westminster?
The method the prime minister and his supporters tend to cite is that
forthcoming negotiations over moves towards EU 'fiscal union' should be
used to try to broaden discussions - to giving the UK opt-outs from
other areas of the treaty. The EU, they say, "is changing" and Britain
should take its chance to put its own changes on the table.
While there will undoubtedly soon be discussions, mainly centred on the
eurozone, about passing further budgetary sovereignty to Brussels -
since other EU members could dismiss his proposals as irrelevant, this
strategy would involve Cameron having to play extreme hardball with the
EU. He would have to refuse to approve changes purportedly designed to
ensure the euro's survival, until UK opt-outs were granted.
As well as being politically very dramatic and therefore unlikely, this
would leave the UK open to charges of both blackmail and hypocrisy;
since the British government has said that it supports greater fiscal
union for the eurozone countries in order to reduce the effects of euro
instability on the UK economy. The second method is for the government
to invoke Article 48 of the EU treaty. This opens a convoluted process
to revise the treaty involving a succession of conventions and
conferences at the end of which other European governments and
institutions are likely, also, to collectively reject any repatriation
proposal.
That leaves the third method, which is the only way to guarantee that
discussions about the EU's powers cannot simply be dismissed by other
European leaders and, therefore, is the only way that Britain can
underpin the credibility of Cameron's EU strategy. If he hopes on
Wednesday to dodge the accusation that he is seeking merely to introduce
more delay and distraction into the EU debate, rather than respond to
clear public concerns about the union's powers, he must make clear that
he plans to employ Article 50 of the EU treaty.
Only by giving notification that the UK intends to decouple itself from
the EU's growing political centralisation can the PM convince his peers
that he is serious about achieving change. And only then can the country
focus on a necessary debate about how best to shape future relations
with our European neighbours - such that they meet the needs of
business, retain the benefits of cultural exchange but also, crucially,
respect democracy and national diversity.
No comments:
Post a Comment