Yes-campaign blog - June 2005

By Richard Laming

23 June 2005
Mr Blair goes to Brussels

James Stewart gave the performance of his life as a political outsider arriving at the seat of power and determined to play by his rules rather than those of the establishment. "Mr Smith goes to Washington" failed to win him an Oscar but he won the hearts of millions of film lovers.

Mr Blair's performance in the European Union lately is more Franz Kafka than Frank Capra. Two weeks ago, he declared "the UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period." This week, the tone was that "the rebate is an anomaly that has to go". All this from a man with no reverse gear.

So, against that background, what to make of his speech to the European Parliament today? (You can read the speech here.)

It is certainly important that the European Union faces up to the need for reform. There can be no satisfaction in a social model that leaves millions of people unemployed, nor in an agricultural policy that serves to leave millions more in poverty. People around the world need Europe to become a powerful advocate for democracy and the rule of law at the global level.

But there is more to the EU than these simple soundbites and headlines. For what is it that will enable the EU fight unemployment and boost economic growth? What are the preconditions for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. And how will Europe actually become able to hold up its head in the world?

The answers to these questions will be developed over time, if we can debate the issues fairly and frankly. But the common thread to all of them is that they depend on a renewed cooperation between the member states, in the framework of our shared democratic institutions. All the talk of the unique success of the European Union is a reference to the unique success of its supra nationalism.

In the search for the right policies, denunciation by one government leader of the others isn't going to help. The need to reform the EU to make it a continued success in the future is going to need the contribution of all of them.

* * *

I can recommend Gordon Brown's speech at the Mansion House last night, too. (You can find it here.) Amid an excellent description of the economic challenges ahead (or even here right now, according to your taste), he says that, of the founders of the EU, "In their desire to secure a Europe at peace they came to believe that a European identity could supersede national identities." That's not quite right. They thought that a European identity could accompany national identities, not replace them. Gordon Brown does not have to choose between being British and Scottish, does he?

¤ ¤ ¤

17 June 2005
Precision

One of the supposed selling points of the European constitution was that it would define and limit the powers to the EU institutions. Member states and citizens would know where they stood. What can Brussels do, and what can't it do? We have a right to know.

There was a continual strain of criticism, not wholly misplaced, that the European constitution did not in fact define and limit the powers of the EU institutions. For example, what does this mean?

"The Union shall have competence to carry out supporting, coordinating or complementary action. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be: (a) protection and improvement of human health;"

If you are in a cynical and suspicious frame of mind, then these words in Article I-17 are an open invitation to the rest of the EU to come here and tell us how to run the NHS. The centralisation of health policy, said some of the newspapers.

Alternatively, these words could provide the legal basis for exchanges of information and experience among medical professionals in different member states. There was a report recently of research into how to fight MRSA that was carried out in Poland. Using the EU to share that kind of knowledge seems like rather a sensible idea. There is no lust in other countries to take over our health service, just as we have no burning desire to take over theirs. Article I-17 facilitates a practical exchange between countries of a like mind, as does the rest of the EU.

Both of these interpretations come from the same form of words in the constitution. No wonder its opponents say that it must be changed. But, if that is so, let them also demand changes to the British constitution. A written answer in the House of Commons from the Prime Minister to Graham Allen MP published on 15 June observed that

"The powers available to the Prime Minister under the Royal Prerogative have evolved over many years and it is not possible precisely to define them."

The Royal Prerogative is even more unclear than Article I-17. I would have more sympathy for opponents of the European constitution if they could show more consistency in what it is they do and don't believe.

¤ ¤ ¤

13 June 2005
What should the summit do?

Opinions fly around about the European Council meeting later this week, even among people who are normally on the same side in the debate about Europe.

Should the ratification process continue, despite the two No votes? Or should it be abandoned? If abandoned, something else must be done instead, because no-one wants to condemn Europe to the Nice treaty. After all, the reasons why the European constitution was needed - to make the EU more democratic, more effective and more accountable - have not gone away. The need is still there.

In that light, the rejection of the constitution looks in some senses rather perverse. For example, the French No voters, apparently concerned about French influence in the enlarged EU, have voted to retain the distribution of votes in the Council of Ministers specified in the Nice treaty (in which France counts for 29 votes out of 321, or 9 per cent of the total) rather than the simpler double majority system in the constitution (in which France represents 13 per cent of the EU population). The constitution would have given France more voting power, not less, but that is not what the French people voted for. Furthermore, Dutch No voters, notwithstanding their concerns about EU spending, voted to retain a system where 50 per cent of the EU budget is subject to no parliamentary scrutiny, neither European nor national. The constitution would have increased the powers of the European Parliament in this important area, but it was not to be.

So, let's hope that the European Council can keep going with progress towards democracy in the European Union. I have written already that I think that the current constitution is dead and ought to be given a decent burial. I can't imagine it being ratified now. In its place, we need the route to something better.

¤ ¤ ¤

6 June 2005
It was thirty years ago today

The UK's referendum on 5 June 1975 on future membership of the EEC was the first in its history. Odd perhaps that it was demanded by self-styled defenders of parliamentary sovereignty, but nevertheless the people were given the chance to have their say. By a 2/3 majority, they voted yes. The BBC's mocked-up report of it is on their website here.

A great moment in British history, but I personally have absolutely no memory of it. I can remember the general elections of the previous year and the election of Margaret Thatcher as Tory leader in January 1975, but not the referendum campaign in June. Maybe my mind was on the cricket: David Steele was called up that summer to try and defend the Ashes.

Every national poll since 1959 where our relationship with Europe has been stake - 13 general elections and the 1975 referendum - has produced a pro-European majority. (European elections don't count because MEPs have rather a narrow remit which does not include deciding the role and status of the member states.)

What happens next is a good question. I can't imagine that the ratification process will carry an as if nothing has happened and I don't think it should. Referendums and their outcomes should not be taken lightly.

Referendums seem to be used as an equivalent of a parliamentary by-election: an opportunity to bash the political leadership without serious consequences. The media is happy to report them in that light, certainly. I think this is rather misguided.

If the British people should decide that they regret the outcome of a general election, they can change the decision four years later. Regret the outcome of a referendum and they might very well be stuck with it.

A referendum on Europe is the conclusion of a negotiation with the other member states - 8 of them in 1975, 24 of them today. It is not up to the British alone to change the terms of the agreement if they don't like it, and they can't be sure to get another chance or a better deal later on.

These blog entries first appeared on www.yes-campaign.net. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Federal Union or of the Yes campaign.