The European Union: where next? With Gisela Stuart and Vincent Cable
- 15 June 2006
Gisela Stuart kicked off saying that her experience on the Convention on the Future of Europe, which drew up the EU Constitution, helped clarify her views on Europe and made her “realise the limitations of the political project.” She said, “The real threat to Europe’s future comes not from those who want to change the direction of the EU, but from those who are too lazy or too arrogant to see a new direction is necessary. The French and Dutch have voted ‘no’ to the Constitution, but much of Europe’s political elite is trying to pretend that this is a ‘maybe’ or even a ‘yes’.
It’s the same old story, and one that has predominated in Whitehall too: the EU is too complicated for voters to comprehend. But people do understand; all too well. They may not know the minutiae of this sub-clause or that article, but in the round they get it right: that’s what electorates do, at general elections and in referendums.
Can you imagine the response if the results in France and Holland had gone the other way and those opposed to the Constitution had argued that ‘yes’ actually meant ‘no’: they would have been branded as undemocratic, and, quite possibly, mad.
And the significance of the ‘no’ votes has been understated. Much commentary has failed to point out that the Constitution incorporated all the previous treaties so that, implicitly at least, the electorates of France and Holland rejected not just the new bits, but all the previous treaties too, including the Treaty of Rome; and in the case of the Dutch exercising an opportunity they had never been given before (the French had at least just supported Maastricht.) These were votes against the EU in its present form.
If it continues on its present path, Europe will slip into an economic and political crisis. In the past Europe’s political elite has used crises for its own ends to bring about more political integration which it knows electorates would otherwise not consent to. Any crisis, economic or political, has been used in this way: every perceived threat, big or small, real or imagined, from terrorism to footballers’ wages serves as an excuse for ‘more Europe’.
So, what then do we do now? First: nothing – or more accurately, stop doing things that shouldn’t be done. ‘Don’t do something, stand there’ transposes the normal command, but it is necessary.
Provisions which were in the Constitution and which do not require Treaty changes are being introduced without public debate. - The European Defence Agency has been set up - A permanent president of the Euro group has been appointed - At this weekend’s Council the national veto on justice and home affairs legislation may well be abolished - The EU intends to go ahead with setting up a Fundamental Rights Agency - The external Diplomatic Service is here in all but name.
All this has barely raised a yawn in the House of Commons.
The second thing that needs to be done is to make clear that, in Britain, any future treaty which deals with the political and institutional arrangements of the EU, whether or not it is called a constitution, will be subject to a referendum: it is the only way that a government can ensure the consent of the people on this matter.
David Cameron too will have to make such a commitment explicit. It was a Conservative government that refused to have a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.
The third requirement is leadership. Britain’s relationship with Europe has often been described in terms of missing busses or trains leaving stations: because we joined Europe late we have always been trying to catch up, responding to the initiatives of others rather than taking it ourselves.
Whatever the truth of this, there is no better time than now for Britain to take the initiative. During the “period of reflection” governments in other countries have not been afraid to speak, but the British Government hides behind a reluctance to pre-empt a decision, whatever that means.
If the Government goes on like this it will be 3-0 down at half time and running after trains and busses again. The first thing the government needs to do is to state clearly that the Constitution is finished: like the parrot, “dead, deceased and no more.”
The rejection of the Constitution in France and the Netherlands is one reason. The other is the Constitution’s failure to address the fault lines in the current structure […]
It is sometimes argued in Brussels that “we can’t let one or two countries stop others going ahead”. But that’s what unanimity means and that’s what was agreed. Other countries will try to bring back the Constitution after the French election. The British government should make clear that it will not be part of any process that implicitly or explicitly tries to revive the Constitution. That brings me to the second aspect of leadership.
If Britain is to prevent the defeated the EU Constitution or some other unacceptable proposal being re-introduced the Government must have some alternative approach and proposals, at least in outline, to put on the table.
This will require a gear change by the Government and all political parties. Think strategically rather than tactically and set out clearly the sort of Europe Britain wants rather than drift into negotiations to get a result that ‘Britain could live with’.
One reason for this lack of strategic (as opposed to tactical) thinking on the EU is the suffocating consensus that there can be no change in direction that has dominated much of the establishment since Britain first sought entry to the EEC.
The current model – is bust – or has gone much further than originally envisaged, but they can’t think of another, hence the attempt to caricature anyone with different views as being anti-Europe: people who not only want to take Britain out of the EU, but, more bizarrely, of wanting to deny its position as a European power as though, given geography and history, these islands ever have been, or could ever be, anything else. Being a good European does not mean accepting the status quo.
Another reason for the lack of serious though among our political leaders about the future of the EU is that in both the two main parties (and perhaps the Lib-Dems too) there are those who want to sideline Europe because it causes internal divisions.
I understand the problems, but the issue isn’t going to go away and has to be addressed. It is as important that the Conservative Party gets its collective mind clear on Europe as it is for the Government. If they don’t, and if they were to become the government again, the risk is that the Tories would revert to some knee-jerk reaction or, in my view more likely, go along with the crowd in the way they have often done before: the politics of drift.
This is where think tanks can be important in changing the climate or at least making it easier for politicians to engage in debate and if I may say so I think Open Europe is playing a valuable role, particularly at the moment when Europe is not centre of the domestic political stage.
The old gang supporting more EU integration have had a setback on the Constitution, but they know that the best way of achieving their aim is to keep things quiet, to pretend that not much is at stake: don’t frighten the children.
We saw an example of this yesterday in Sir Stephen Wall’s article in the Financial Times: he kicked himself that the outcome of Giscard D’Estaing’s convention was called a constitution. Otherwise everything would have been alright: nothing about its content, that was OK, but if the name plate had been changed a referendum could have been avoided and no one would have been able to do anything about it.
Open Europe has highlighted a number of areas in which the EU needs to reform and like you I hope reform is possible, but the signs are not good and in some respects the EU is going backwards.
If genuine reform turns out to be impossible, Britain (and I suspect other countries too) will have to reconsider its relationship with other member states. This does not mean leaving the EU and jumping into some void – that would not be in Britain’s interest or that of other members, but there is an important distinction between cooperation and further integration.
But as I say I hope reform us possible and on the political front three things seem to me to be vital.
First, there needs to be more genuine accountability to national parliaments. We have in the UK a very effective ‘scrutiny mechanism’, but it carries little political clout. Proposals don’t reach Parliament until the very late stages, and the Government has an inbuilt voting majority. A true commitment to subsidiarity requires that at the outset it is shown – rather than assumed – that a particular measure cannot be achieved at member state level.
And national parliaments collectively should be given a mechanism to oppose Commission proposals which are deemed to breach the principle of subsidiarity.
Secondly, as part of that we need a Cabinet level Europe minister whose responsibility it will be to answer to explain, at the dispatch box with regular answer and question sessions, all the legislation agreed at EU-level with domestic implications.
Thirdly, we have to address the issue of power, or in the jargon, the competences in the EU. That means that there must be an explicitly stated mechanism for powers not just to go to the EU from member states, but also for powers to go from the EU back to member states.
We are told that the last thing the public wants is another session on constitutional naval gazing: the focus should be on the ‘real issues’.
In one sense that may be right, but in practice this argument is being used by those who really want the EU to continue the old ways, trimming a bit here and bending a bit there. In truth unless the allocation of power, particularly between the EU and member states, is addressed, it will not be possible to deal with so-called ‘real issues’ in any effective way.
We are repeatedly told that this is not on the agenda. That’s probably true, but it certainly won’t be unless the British put it there. And let’s not forget that not so long ago it was the agenda: the Laeken Declaration which set the agenda for the constitutional convention set this out clearly.
The fact that Giscard D’Estaing chose to ignore his terms of reference and paddle his own canoe is another matter, but the division of power is fundamental to any reform of the EU, all others are second order questions and the British should make it clear that unless this matter is addressed seriously any proposals emerging from the period of reflection will be, in word quite often used by the French, unacceptable.”
During questions and answers, Gisela said of the process of drawing up the EU Constitution - “This was not a tidying up exercise, it was much more than a tidying up exercise, it went much further.”
She also argued that the EU must be a ‘two-way process’, saying, “It should not be the case that what has been moved to EU level must forever and ever remain there – it must be a two-way process. And that’s one of the mechanisms that’s simply not on the table. I always used to joke that it be easier for me to go into the Presidium and admit to having committed the most horrendous crimes than to question, or even to suggest that powers ever return to member states. It was a no-go area, absolutely unforgivable.”
Asked what will happen next, “do you think the British Government has been a bit complacent in thinking, phew, we’re off the hook – are they going to be back on hook?” Gisela says, “Yes they will be back on the hook. What I think will happen is that increasingly they will go bit by bit as the need arises, see what they can do without the […] treaty-base… They’ll run into the buffers when we go beyond Romania and Bulgaria, because then the rule-book will to be looked at again.”
Vincent Cable also gave a speech and answered questions. He started out saying that he describes his position as “sceptically pro-European, or, if you turn it around, constructively Euro-sceptic. A lot of things happen in the European Union happen that I don’t like, that I’m very critical of, and want to see reformed, but on the other hand I can’t envisage circumstances in which I would ever want to argue for our leaving.”
He said, “There are two problems with the Single Market – the Services Directive… which has produced an agreement which is exceedingly weak… and the second is that the underlying principle of the single market, which was mutual recognition standards, there was competition between standards, a detached, non-interventionist, non-harmonising approach, has largely been forgotten. That is of course the source of much of the irritation and frustration that business-people in particular feel. So that although the single market has in many respects been a major achievement, there are questions about how it has been accomplished.
Vincent also outlined a number of worries he has about the problems which will arise over the next few years – notably the failure of Europe to achieve adequate reform, particularly in agriculture, and the fact that “we may be heading towards a major breakdown in international trade negotiations, in which the EU will have primary responsibility.” He also said he didn’t see how British entry into Economic and Monetary Union could be brought back into the debate, which, he believes, will lead to “a steady divergence between us and the rest of Europe.”
On the Constitution, he said, “I think this a subject which most British people in British politics regard with considerable dread. Because it is very very difficult to see under any circumstances how a treaty, if it was at all substantial, would pass a referendum in the UK.” He said, “The Conservatives would almost be certain to demand a referendum, I think we would also, for reasons both of high and low politics. If the treaty came up in a revised form anything like what happened before, with nothing serious on issues of subsidiarity, for example, I think there would be widespread worry about it. Unless what we were going to be offered was a series of very limited technical changes – you know, reducing the number of foreign Commissioners to a couple – and things of this kind, which could be dealt with on a piecemeal basis – I find it very to difficult to see how the British, across the spectrum could conceivably sign a treaty in the foreseeable future.”
He said there would have to be a referendum on the Constitution, saying, “This has to be dealt with in the UK through a referendum process, because there is a very serious problem about the underlying feeling of legitimacy about the European project in the UK whether you believe in it or not. That’s why a treaty that does involve substantial sovereignty-sharing, (if that’s what’s ultimately involved) and something like monetary union, really does have to go through that process. I believe eventually we will sign up to these things – we’re probably talking about decades rather than years – but it’s very very important that the British people are seen to buy into it. Because otherwise you just have massive disillusions and cynicism about the political process in general and in Europe in particularly – we can’t short-circuit that process.”
©