The terms are set. Provided that the Conservative Party wins the election in 2015, an in-out referendum on membership of the EU will be held in 2017, with the hope of new terms on the table. David Cameron does not want the UK to “slide out of Europe”, but he wants a change in Britain’s relationship with the EU, namely a repatriation of powers from Brussels. Delayed by the hostage crisis, Cameron has offered an unequivocal stance to the British people. Is it the right one?
It would be a rather optimistic view to believe that Cameron has done this for intrinsic or genuine purposes. It is an out and out tactical manoeuvre, designed with the specific intention of placating his pesky rebel backbenchers (almost 100 in number) and the growing threat of UKIP. In the short term, it could reap dividends. The EU rebels within the Conservative Party are appeased (for now), and Nigel Farage’s demagoguery is somewhat diminished; with his rallying cry of “give us a referendum”, what now can he offer that hasn’t already been offered by the Conservative Party? Furthermore, it places the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party in particular in a tight spot; if UKIP’s supporters now flock back to the Tories, Ed Miliband’s poll lead could significantly be cut short. Miliband is pro-European like much of his party, and does not want an EU exit. However, if he sticks by these principles and doesn’t offer a referendum too then he could be lampooned as the man who doesn’t “trust the people”. If Euroscepticism really is catching on, he could ironically be categorised as “out of touch” with the public.
Despite these factors, Cameron has been shown up. Whilst many commentators will view this offer as a strength of his leadership, it conversely portrays a weakness. Just as John Major’s time in office was blighted by in-fighting over Europe, Cameron has allowed himself to cave into the demands of a section of backbenchers within the Conservative Party, all of this despite proclaiming in 2006 that the Tories should “stop banging on about Europe”.
Despite a manifesto commitment from all three of the major parties to a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords, Cameron withdrew the bill when it was obvious that he could not control the minority of Tories numerous enough to block it (although the Labour Party are guilty of intransigence on this issue, too). Whilst mainly would say that a smidgeon of democracy is not a priority, the House of Lords episode nevertheless exposes a similarity with Cameron’s handling of Europe; he is not strong enough to put into practice what he believes in. There’s no doubt that he is Eurosceptic, but equally he does not want an EU exit, something which this referendum could well speed up.
Criticism does not fall solely at Cameron’s door. Many Conservatives (rightly or wrongly) bemoaned electing the House of Lords as a “distraction” from the priority of growth and getting the economy moving. A fair riposte, yet it is these same backbench rebels that are now screaming from the rooftops about Europe; if they were to listen to the millions of low and middle income earners in the country battling with austerity Britain, do they really think that Europe will be listed as the main priority? In this context, Chris Huhne’s description of the “Tea Party tendency” within the Conservative Party is shrewdly accurate. The Tories in Britain are, mercifully, not as right-wing and zealous as the far-right Republicans in America, but this EU episode nevertheless exposes this tendency, namely their ignorant determination to pursue an ideological model of self-interest, without paying much heed to the wider issues.
David Cameron was right to say that Britain would be presented with “a false choice” if a referendum was held in this parliament, but we would arguably be presented with a false choice in 2017, too. A reasonable debate has yet to emerge on the EU. Media outlets such as The Independent, The Guardian and The Economist are fighting the pro-Europe corner, but far more numerous in circulation are the influential Eurosceptic bastions such as The Sun and The Daily Mail. Rupert Murdoch’s influence remains prominent; he has recently had private meetings with Tory leader-hopeful Boris Johnson. There’s little doubt that large swathes of the electorate are at least sceptical about Europe, but have they really been presented with the plus points of membership? Mythical figures are bandied about too readily about the cost of membership, with no detail whatsoever on what we get back, or the benefits of it. In a recent blog entry, I have already alluded to the lack of scrutiny of UKIP, and this applies too to the lack of examination of the Eurosceptic argument.
Exports to other EU countries account for 51 per cent of the UK’s exports of goods and services, worth £200 billion; trade with the US, by contrast, constitutes 13 per cent of UK exports. Even I will admit that this trade would not simply disappear if we left the EU, but it is highly unlikely (and too great a risk) that these levels of trade would be unhindered under an exit plan. The other EU members are disgruntled enough as it is with Britain; would they really be willing to offer new trade agreements with Britain? Furthermore, a senior US official recently noted that the US “welcomes an outward-looking European Union with Britain in it. We benefit when the EU is unified, speaking with a single voice, and focused on our shared interests around the world and in Europe...we want to see a strong British voice in that European Union. That is in the American interest." You would think that ‘Special Relationship’ romanticists on the Tory backbenches would sit up and take notice of this, but alas. The EU offers multilateral partnerships, which are more crucial than ever in an era of austerity and economic uncertainty.
The status quo does not have to be maintained. The EU needs to be far more democratically accountable, and any future treaties need to be ratified by the consent of the people through referenda. However, positives can still emerge from this referendum. Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg now have the opportunity to passionately stand by their pro-European principles, and (dare I say it) work together on the issue; the vote against the boundary changes could be a tentative step in this direction. The referendum could also diminish the socially conservative UKIP, a factor often overlooked. Cameron has won the battle for now, but he is kidding himself if he thinks that the Tory rebels will cut him some slack, even with an agreement on a first ever cut in the EU budget for the period 2014-2020. If a new pro-European alliance can offer a strong case for EU membership, with dogma kicked aside, Cameron could lose the war and the Election.
No comments:
Post a Comment