Will Straw on the relation of EU and Britain

[Thanas]

Will Straw is the Labour Party candidate for the Rossendale and Darwen constituency. He is an associate director at the Institute for Public Policy Research and founder of the think tank Left Foot Forward.

Great Britain used to play a key role in leading Europe, and the benefits have been substantial. But now, the UK is turning its back on the EU and has chosen to focus on peripheral issues. It is the wrong move.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Winston Churchill called for the creation of a "United States of Europe" to bind France and Germany together. In doing so, he made clear that Britain would be a supportive but independent partner of any such entity. He famously said: 'We are with Europe but not of it."

In the end, Britain did join the European Economic Community but only in 1973, 15 years after the Treaty of Rome was signed. We joined the Social Chapter in 1997, eight years after it was adopted by other member states. And we never signed up to Economic and Monetary Union or the Schengen Agreement on common borders.

In other words: Britain was always a bit late to the party. But once it found its way to Belgium, Britain had an uncanny knack of winning the big strategic battles. It is therefore a puzzle that the current British government has diverted its attention from winning the next round of key policy debates in Brussels and, instead, focused on a pointless exercise of seeking treaty change to repatriate powers. Britain should stop wasting its time with this futile endeavour and concentrate on aligning the EU's institutions with an agenda of growth and democracy.

While Britain's political leaders have been cautious and incremental in expanding the UK's involvement with Europe, they have been phenomenally successful in shaping its institutions to British strategic goals:

First, the UK succeeded in ensuring that "broadening" rather than "deepening" was the underlining objective of the EU over the last two decades. From 12 member states in 1973, the EU expanded to 15 in 1995, 25 in 2004 and has recently accepted its 28th member with the accession of Croatia. While Turkish membership may be a way off, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia are all candidate countries.

Second, the different voting systems used by the EU's institutions tend to favour British interests. For example, the single market, which most Britain's are united in supporting, and the regulations that help create and preserve it have been advanced using Qualified Majority Voting. Meanwhile, issues where Britain exerts more caution -- such as tax harmonisation, redistribution, and defence -- have to be agreed on the basis of unanimity. These were all "red lines" during the negotiations last decade on a new European constitution.

Third, despite successive attempts by federalists to see it expanded, the EU's budget has been kept below 1 percent of GDP across the continent and Britain has successfully defended its budget rebate which was secured by Margaret Thatcher to compensate for the high net cost to the UK of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Fourth, as outlined above, Britain has ensured that "variable geometry" has been possible on new areas of co-operation. As a result, other member states have gone faster on economic and monetary union, and on common borders. The current debate about justice and home affairs powers is another example where the British government, if it can reach its own consensus, is able to go at a different speed to the rest of Europe.

Fifth, Britain has dictated much of the EU's common foreign and security policy. The E3 negotiations between Britain, France, Germany and Iran were a London-led initiative. Meanwhile, Britain was instrumental in pushing for a European External Action Service. In difficult circumstances, Commission Vice-President Catherine Ashton helped to shape that institution.

Given these successes, Britain might have been expected to play a constructive role in helping the EU deal with the two most fundamental challenges of the current crisis: growth and democracy. The global financial crisis has put a huge strain on the Union and the euro-zone countries in particular. Those on the periphery of Europe, which developed current account deficits during the last decade, have been unable to devalue in order to enhance their competitiveness as would normally take place. Instead they have been forced to undertake painful cuts to public spending in combination with tax increases in an attempt to bring their deficits under control. As a result, the euro zone as a whole fell into a double dip recession last year and around half of EU member states contracted in the first quarter of 2013, though the situation now appears to be improving. Far from achieving fiscal consolidation, all but nine of the EU28 countries saw debt levels increase in the final quarter of 2012.

As a result of the economic malaise, but also due to a sense of detachment from EU decision-making, public support for the EU is on the wane across the continent. Britain's antipathy has long been a feature of public opinion research but other countries are now following suit. Research by Pew found that the number of Europeans who are favourable about the EU fell from 60 percent in 2012 to 45 percent in 2013. Among the eight countries surveyed, the biggest fall in support came in France (down 19 percentage points), Spain (down 14 percentage points) and Germany (down 8 percentage points). Support in Britain fell by a more modest 2 percentage points but from a low base of 45 percent.

A Degree of Instibility

The UK government could have been constructive in addressing these two challenges but instead it has created a degree of instability for the British business community by calling for a repatriation of powers and a referendum on the continued membership of the EU. The 2010 Tory party manifesto set out that a Conservative government would, "negotiate for three specific guarantees -- on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation -- with our European partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU."

The Cabinet Office launched a "review of the balance of competences" with terms of reference to "look at where competence lies, how the EU's competences, whether exclusive, shared or supporting, are used and what that means for our national interest." This bureaucratic process covers 32 different reviews of policy areas including trade and investment, social and employment, and fundamental rights. It is expected to conclude in the autumn of 2014.

TheFresh Start group of over 100 euro-sceptic Conservative MPs has pre-empted the conclusions with their own set of recommendations, published in January 2013. One motivation for the group's work appears to be to hack away at workers' rights. In 2011, a report for the government by Adrian Beecroft concluded that "much of employment law and regulation impedes the search for efficiency and competitiveness … [and] simply exacerbates the national problem of high unemployment." Many of the recommendations were buried by the Conservative's coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, but the report remains a cause célèbre for Tory backbenchers.

Consistent with this, the Fresh Start report includes a call for EU treaty revisions to, among other ideas, "repatriate competence in the area of social and employment law to Member States." Foreign Secretary William Hague wrote a foreword. While he did not endorse all the ideas, he wrote that it was "doubly welcome" and "will be essential reading for all of us when we come to write the Conservative Party's next general election manifesto."

If these ideas became formal British government policy, there is very little to suggest that EU member states would be willing to negotiate with the UK on a new relationship. Commission President José Manuel Barroso has said that there are no supporters on the continent for a British repatriation of powers. One MEP told The Economist that, "goodwill towards the UK is rapidly running out in Europe."

Diminishing Leadership Role

Over the period that British energy in relation to the EU has focused on repatriating powers, the UK has seen its leadership role in Brussels diminish. Figures collected by the Vote Watch website indicate that Britain is losing more votes in the European Council than at any point in recent history. In 2009-10 and 2010-11, the UK lost just 2 percent of Council conclusions that went to a qualified majority vote. In 2011-12, the year in which David Cameron walked out of the Council meeting, the number of defeats rose to 5 percent. In 2013, it has increased to 7 percent. There is a widespread view in Brussels that there are many more instances which do not come to a formal vote when Britain is now on the losing side. This decline in power is mirrored within the Commission where the share of British staff has fallen by 24 percent to 4.6 percent over seven years.

Instead of losing votes in the Council, proposing unrealistic treaty changes, and creating bad will, Britain should be working at the heart of Europe to enhance prosperity and democracy.

In relation to growth, the British government should have played a greater role in helping resolve the euro-zone crisis. This should have involved a four-pronged programme.

First, the EU should have encouraged greater flexibility on fiscal targets so that countries suffering rapid increases in employment could ease off spending cuts (a policy belatedly adopted by the Commission).

Second, the EU should have called for more rapid action by the European Central Bank and the European Systemic Risk Board to create proper macro-prudential regulation to complement the existing proposals for a banking union.

Thirdly, the EU should have developed a more stringent and symmetrical monitoring of current account imbalances to prevent core countries like Germany building up massive surpluses at the expense of deficits on the periphery. If Britain had been at the forefront of efforts along these lines since 2011 it could have helped prevent the euro zone's double dip recession.

New Measures for Democracy

Fourthly and looking forward, the UK should encourage the appointment of a new growth commissioner within the next European Commission. He or she should ensure that the new budget for competitiveness in the multi-annual financial framework is focused in the right areas, including funds to help the crisis countries make structural reforms to their countries such as tax resilience, labour market reform, childcare expansion, skills enhancement and pension reform. In recognition that Europe's future prosperity depends on staying at the technological frontier, there should be increased resources for joint research and development projects, particularly focused on encouraging a transition to a low-carbon economy across the EU. Third, the commissioner should push for enhanced co-operation on services and a digital single market.

To reinforce democracy, new measures are necessary to enhance the legitimacy of the EU's institutions. The UK government should support the efforts to ensure that a single figure from the party grouping gaining most votes at the 2014 European election should become the next president of the Commission and Council -- a reform that does not require treaty change. This should go hand-in-hand with a rebalancing of the EU's institutions away from the Commission, with the power of initiation residing in the Council and Parliament. Meanwhile, individual commissioners should be accountable to their national parliaments for the work of the whole Commission.

Britain should encourage a renewed focus on improving the stock and flow of EU regulation with old regulations being scrapped on a simple majority Council vote. National parliaments should be given an enhanced role in blocking new legislation and identifying old legislation that could be amended or repealed. National consultations should take place to devise lists of EU legislation that citizens would most like to remove or significantly amend. Meanwhile, closer co-operation within the EU should only take place where public opinion supports it as it does in relation to non-military threats, including climate change, organised crime and terrorism, protectionism, the rise of Asia and irregular migration.

These reforms would go a long way to reviving growth and democratic legitimacy in Europe, but the British government has wasted time by focusing on the party interest of the Conservatives rather than on the broad national interest of the UK. This has been to the detriment of both Britain, which has been marginalised in Europe, and of Europe, which has benefited in the past from an engaged and pragmatic Britain. A new approach is desperately needed if Britain and Europe are to get out of their current predicament.

It reminds me of the old quote by Thatcher "If you are not in the room then you are on the menu".

[Tribble]

Seeing as Thatcher was also against having Britain abandon the Pound and join the Euro, I'm not entirely sure that she would approve of closer integration. Personally I think that the EU should have been more a NAFTA-like agreement than the current regime, but that's up for you guys to decide. And while I think it's in the UK's and Europe's best interests to stay together, I can certainly understand why the UK would hesitate to join the Euro currency. If the continental EU powers are expecting them to do that they are seriously deluding themselves. Its pretty clear that the vast majority of UK population would rather leave and face the consequences than join the Euro, so I really hope the rest of the EU isn't stupid enough to try and force the issue.

[Thanas]

Well, to be honest the EU is on the path to closer integration. I would assume that Britain would want to jump on the train just out of self-interest and to be able to influence the process. Right now they are slowly being shut out, thereby doing the exact opposite of what they want, surrender control to France and Germany with no other strong voice being heard.

This can only lead to trouble. More for Britain and less for the EU, but lot of trouble for everyone nonetheless.

[Purple]

How much trouble would it be if england were to just up and leave the EU?

[Thanas]

How much trouble would it be if england were to just up and leave the EU?

It would be a heavy blow to prestige and to the economy of the EU, moreso to Britain. Just a lose lose really.

[Zaune]

I think the explanation is actually very simple. The British public hate Europe, Europeans and frankly foreigners in general. Just look at the better-selling newspapers in this country; I don't know if they're symptom, cause or a little of both but I'm sad to say that they reflect a real trend in public opinion.

You won't get a country that sends immigration officials into the street to hassle black people to provide proof of citizenship to cooperate closely with foreign governments. It's a wonder we haven't had an MP claim the EU is a sinister plot to create a Fourth Reich or something yet.

[Purple]

How much trouble would it be if england were to just up and leave the EU?

It would be a heavy blow to prestige and to the economy of the EU, moreso to Britain. Just a lose lose really.

Prestige sure, but what actual economic damage would there be?

[Thanas]

I think the explanation is actually very simple. The British public hate Europe, Europeans and frankly foreigners in general. Just look at the better-selling newspapers in this country; I don't know if they're symptom, cause or a little of both but I'm sad to say that they reflect a real trend in public opinion.

You won't get a country that sends immigration officials into the street to hassle black people to provide proof of citizenship to cooperate closely with foreign governments. It's a wonder we haven't had an MP claim the EU is a sinister plot to create a Fourth Reich or something yet.

No worries, Thatcher did the latter already.

[Tribble]

How much economic damage would there be if Britain abandoned the pound and went for the euro? Sure there might be a short term gain, but what about long term consequences? I don't see why they should tie their currency to the euro when there are countries like Greece dragging the rest of the Eurozone down with them.

And Zaune is correct. Britain has always been against foreigners, and against being ruled by the continent. UK residents have made it absolutely clear that they do not want to be ruled by the bureaucrats at Brussels. And if Merkel keeps pushing for it she'll just be feeding more ammo to parties like UKIP which believe that it's another attempt by Germany to conquer Europe... only this time via politics and economics rather than warfare. The more the continent pushes for integration, the more the British will resist. And if the EU demands "join the euro or else!" far right wing parties like UKIP will end up taking control. Quite frankly, I think it is in everyone's best interests if Britain leaves... they get to keep the "foreigners" out, while the rest of the EU can continue to integrate without their interference.

[Zaune]

How much economic damage would there be if Britain abandoned the pound and went for the euro? Sure there might be a short term gain, but what about long term consequences? I don't see why they should tie their currency to the euro when there are countries like Greece dragging the rest of the Eurozone down with them.

And Zaune is correct. Britain has always been against foreigners, and against being ruled by the continent. UK residents have made it absolutely clear that they do not want to be ruled by the bureaucrats at Brussels. And if Merkel keeps pushing for it she'll just be feeding more ammo to parties like UKIP which believe that it's another attempt by Germany to conquer Europe... only this time via politics and economics rather than warfare. The more the continent pushes for integration, the more the British will resist. And if the EU demands "join the euro or else!" far right wing parties like UKIP will end up taking control. Quite frankly, I think it is in everyone's best interests if Britain leaves... they get to keep the "foreigners" out, while the rest of the EU can continue to integrate without their interference.

And then our economy falls apart because the EU can impose whatever trade barriers they so choose, either to pressure us into coming back in or just out of spite. Not to mention the effect that being cut off from migrant workers will have on our economy when people start retiring faster than babies are being born.

And that ignores the possibility that we'll be seen as siding with the US against Europe in any hypothetical future conflict.

[Tribble]

Sorry, but I call a spade a spade; there's no point in pretending like the majority UK residents are ever going to agree with closer integration with the EU, regardless of the potential benefits of doing so. In fact, most polls suggest that if a referendum were held today they would choose to leave. The only way that the UK will gain closer ties with the EU is if the government goes directly against its own citizens wishes, and all that will do is drive people in voting for parties like UKIP. And closer integration with common-wealth countries and the US is exactly what parties like UKIP are promoting.

Unless elections are banned, and the EU government take direct control over the country, I don't see how the continent is going to convince the UK electorate to change their minds. And if the EU tries to force the issue, well, aren't they just proving the EU detractor's point? That the EU cannot be trusted and is just a dictatorship in disguise?

[Simon_Jester]

And then our economy falls apart because the EU can impose whatever trade barriers they so choose, either to pressure us into coming back in or just out of spite. Not to mention the effect that being cut off from migrant workers will have on our economy when people start retiring faster than babies are being born.

Don't you guys already have a raging permanent unemployment problem in large parts of the country?

I'm no fan of nativism. But if your economy depends on importing laborers AND you have permanent unemployment that puts able-bodied, functional human beings out of a job for years at a time... something has gone significantly wrong.

[No, neither of these pieces of information is news to me in the context of Britain, or for that matter the US. Just trying to express my point compactly]

[Thanas]

Sorry, but I call a spade a spade; there's no point in pretending like the majority UK residents are ever going to agree with closer integration with the EU, regardless of the potential benefits of doing so. In fact, most polls suggest that if a referendum were held today they would choose to leave. The only way that the UK will gain closer ties with the EU is if the government goes directly against its own citizens wishes, and all that will do is drive people in voting for parties like UKIP. And closer integration with common-wealth countries and the US is exactly what parties like UKIP are promoting.

Unless elections are banned, and the EU government take direct control over the country, I don't see how the continent is going to convince the UK electorate to change their minds. And if the EU tries to force the issue, well, aren't they just proving the EU detractor's point? That the EU cannot be trusted and is just a dictatorship in disguise?

That is true, the EU has been the bogeyman for every bad thing in Britain since forever. Irresponsible and damaging by the British politicians but it is what it is. If they don't want to be part of the EU then there is no point in forcing them.

[Zaune]

Don't you guys already have a raging permanent unemployment problem in large parts of the country?

I'm no fan of nativism. But if your economy depends on importing laborers AND you have permanent unemployment that puts able-bodied, functional human beings out of a job for years at a time... something has gone significantly wrong.

Yes, it almost certainly has, and I'll even concede that cutting off migrant workers might result in some temporary improvement. But there's a number of of complicating factors, starting with the fact that we've done an absolutely lousy job of giving people the skills they need to get a job; first we made the mistake of shifting the burden of training skilled manual workers from employers themselves to the Department of Education and the community colleges, then we had the brilliant idea of setting a target for a minimum of 50% of school leavers to go on to university. The practical upshot of which is a lot of people with no marketable skills and no money to retrain with, and actually correcting that is going to involve spending serious money on a category of people that the popular press hate nearly as much as they hate foreigners.

[Minischoles]

Blame decades of red top propaganda on some peoples thinking. A week can't go by without one of them running some misunderstood, inflated or at times simply fabricated wholesale story about 'bureaucrats in Brussels' dooming us all in some way or another.

It's damn near impossible at this stage to change those peoples minds, they're so brainwashed they wouldn't even listen if you told them all of the benefits the EU gives us and how catastrophically bad it would be if we ever left.

All they see is the scare tactics, migrants coming to claim benefits (patently untrue, but hasn't stopped the Tories legislating against it), coming to take advantage of the NHS (patently untrue even by the governments own studies), coming to take jobs (do jobs that Britons refuse to do).

Then you've got nutters like UKIP and Tory backbenchers forcing the main Tory party further away from the EU and the UK is in a position that if (somehow) the Tories win the next election, they'll screw the country.

[Tribble]

They also worry about the Pound being replaced by the Euro. Out of all their concerns, I think that one is perhaps the most valid. Trying to combine the currencies of countries like France and Germany with countries like Greece doesn't appear to have worked out very well.

[Thanas]

Why not? Overall the Euro has become a real success.

[Tribble]

It depends on what you define as success, and for whom. Would the Greeks agree that the Euro has been beneficial for them? Or the Portuguese? Or the Spanish? I think that in this case at least the UK might be right in their skepticism to convert to the Euro "for the greater good". As for the other policies, I think it would be a mistake for the UK to leave, but to be realistic there's a good chance of that happening in 2017. And the more the EU tries to resist and put on the pressure, the greater the chance. And if they start claiming that leaving the EU is "verboten" that would practically guarantee that the UK would leave, if only just to prove them wrong.

[Kinyo]

I think it's wrong to claim that all the British hate anything that's foreign but it is safe to say that we have a tendency to look at ourselves before other nations.

Part of the Common British citizens issue with the EU is that we joined an economic area under a referendum but that this has changed to a body that is attempting to become a state and this is something that we have not been asked about.

Mix that with bad journalism and the perception that the rules that we want are being overridden by something that isn't our government and it's not surprising that the average person only sees the EU as a monolithic beurocratic monster that want our money, land and jobs.

Where I live would, and does, benefit from the EU development fund but good luck trying to get the people here to realise that as all that we are told is what bad things happen and nothing good. There is a massive mistrust which people moan about but do nothing combat letting UK journalists and politicians use it as a scapegoat for actual issues.

[His Divine Shadow]

Part of the Common British citizens issue with the EU is that we joined an economic area under a referendum but that this has changed to a body that is attempting to become a state and this is something that we have not been asked about.

Lots of people in Finland and other countries feel the same. It's possibly the most common complaint I see. People want an EU that means they can go and work/travel here and there and buy stuff online without paying import duties, but they don't want a bunch of power moved to Brussels or see any need for the EU to speak with one voice or anything like that.

[PKRudeBoy]

Part of the Common British citizens issue with the EU is that we joined an economic area under a referendum but that this has changed to a body that is attempting to become a state and this is something that we have not been asked about.

Lots of people in Finland and other countries feel the same. It's possibly the most common complaint I see. People want an EU that means they can go and work/travel here and there and buy stuff online without paying import duties, but they don't want a bunch of power moved to Brussels or see any need for the EU to speak with one voice or anything like that.

Quite frankly, I don't really see a EU superstate ever really working out too well. Even with a common language, culture and history there are strong regional divides in the US, and we only went to war with those assholes down South once. What do, say, Swedes, Slovaks, and Spaniards have in common other than starting with S and the Thirty Years War?

[Thanas]

Which is why nobody talks about a European superstate (yet). The most optimistic situation calls for the nations to get along with each other for a hundred years or so before a superstate can be formed.

[Tribble]

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been completely politically unified since the 1700's. They have had hundreds of years to learn how to "get along with each other." Yet here we are in 2014 with a Scottish Referendum on independence taking place this fall!

There is no possible way a European superstate is going to work. Nor can I see one forming via citizens' consent. Hell, it seems like even the USA struggles to stay together, and that's with a population which is much more homogenous than Europe. The only way I can see a European superstate emerging is if the EU drags everyone kicking and screaming into it regardless of their citizens' opinions, and for some countries it's starting to look like that's exactly what the EU is trying to do.

And it really doesn't help the EU's cause when their unelected Commissioners go around telling member countries when they should be holding their elections. Or put political pressure to remove democratically elected leaders who disagree with them.

[Siege]

There's plenty good reasons to be critical of the EU but 'the Commissioners are unelected' is not one of them. British cabinet ministers aren't directly elected either, is that also a terrible failure of democracy? Because the Commissioners are the EU equivalent, right down to their accountability to the (elected) European Parliament.

[Siege]

... and wherein by 'aren't directly elected' I mean 'the voter doesn't get to decide who gets to be Secretary for Education or Chancellor of the Exchequer'. I am aware that British cabinet ministers are themselves MPs. It probably also bears pointing out that particular model is by no means a European standard either.