The British Referendum:
David Cameron: Best agent for the “OUT” vote!
Despite all his
protestations, David Cameron is paving the way for an overwhelming victory of
the “leave the EU” campaign. The leak of the four “demands” published in the
Sunday Telegraph constitute its most recent and irrefutable demonstration.
Indeed, they are either without object or, at best, a clumsy attempt to
pre-empt the outcome of a future overhaul of the EU Treaty. The foreseeable
consequences are the disappointment of the largely undecided British elector
who will be tempted to “go it alone” (with or without the PM’s endorsement).
The first “demand”
is an “explicit statement that
Britain will be kept out of any moves towards a ‘European super-state’. This
is hardly necessary because such moves imply Treaty changes for which unanimity
is required, giving the UK a veto or the option to withdraw from the Union
according to the procedures of the Lisbon Treaty.
The second “demand” is the “recognition that the EU is a “multi-currency union”. This is an
unalterable “fact” as long as the Eurozone does not extend to the entire Union.
Britain benefits already from an exemption to join the Eurozone so it needs no
additional assurances.
The third requires
instituting “a red card system which would allow
groups of national Parliaments to block proposed EU laws and scrap existing
laws”. This clearly would require Treaty changes. It
is preposterous to require that the 27 Member States commit ahead of time to
such a change which would necessarily emerge (if at all) from a broader
renegotiation of the Union’s institutional architecture. The principle at stake
is the hierarchy of laws which, if the British proposal was accepted, would
clearly subordinate EU law to national legislations. It would render all future
EU attempts to legislate not only more difficult but also, because of the
possibility of repeal by national parliaments, institute a high degree of legal
uncertainty inhibiting significantly trans-border investment decisions. The
laborious functioning of the EU would be stifled even further.
Fourthly, “a
reorganisation of the EU to safeguard the rights of the nine non-Eurozone
member states”. This
demand is also preposterous to the extent that it imposes on the Eurozone
Members the exact kind of limitations to their sovereignty that the UK wishes
to preserve for itself. Would, for instance, the PM “agree that, in case of Brexit, he would safeguard the rights of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish citizens to
remain Members of the EU”?
That the EU needs
profound reforms is an undisputed fact. To the extent the referendum takes
place before the end of 2017 as promised, the question should be rephrased: “does
Britain stay in the EU to participate fully in the renegotiating of the treaty
so as to protect its interests or does it leave, abandoning its capacity of
influencing the outcome”. A vote
to stay “in” does not pre-empt the possibility of leaving the EU later if the
UK is not satisfied with the outcome of the proposed treaty changes.
It is interesting
that David Cameron seems to have shelved requests for amendments in a number of
EU directives and regulations (immigration, benefit rights, working and social
rights, free movement of people with the EU, etc.) all subjects where several other
Member States are also in favour of change. These can indeed be obtained to a
large extent through the normal EU legislative process and should avoid creating
new “exemptions or opt-outs”.
Based on the
formulation of the latest British “demands” the EU should refuse to negotiate
anything ahead of time. The Commission should redirect its special purpose task
force towards preparing a reformed institutional framework for the Union, where
the UK would have ample opportunity to present its requests.
The European
Council has a heavy responsibility in controlling the EU reform process. By allowing
pre referendum negotiations it would transfer to the British the right of
determining alone the EU’s future because the issue of the negotiations would
only bind one of the parties.
Brexit can lead to
two main scenarios:
It galvanises the
other Members – freed from British obstruction – to changing profoundly the
nature of the Union, allowing it to deploy its full potential including in the
areas of defence, foreign affairs, economic and monetary affairs. EU reform
proceeds rapidly without regard for British interests, aiming specifically at
achieving “a closer Union”, a Eurozone enlarged to the entire Union and
establishing a clear hierarchy in community legislation subordinating local and
national prescriptions to Union law. The UK would find itself isolated and confronted
with holding the “United Kingdom” together while negotiating simultaneously new
relationships with its trading partners.
Alternatively, Brexit
establishes a damaging precedent and reinforces the nationalist-populist
“Eurosceptic” parties within other Member States. Reforming the EU becomes
impossible and the single currency’s survival is constantly put into jeopardy.
At some point either market forces or political events – international or
domestic – lead to a breakup of the Union and the implosion of the Euro. The
subsequent chaos would spread to the entire globe; it would not spare the UK.
Its dire consequences could prove even more damaging economically, socially and
politically than Brexit itself.
In conclusion,
David Cameron is steering Britain - maybe unwittingly - on a very dangerous course.
The European Council has the obligation to consider the interests of all of its
members and not pander to the idiosyncrasies of one of them. Only Chancellor
Merkel has the necessary stature to lead a radical challenge to the Prime
Minister, leaving, as usual, President Hollande groping hopelessly for a compromise
between the former’s incompatible visions?
God save both the
Queen and the EU!
Lorgues, October
13th 2015
Paul N. Goldschmidt
Director,
European Commission (ret.); Member of the Steering Committee of the Thomas More
Institute.
___________________________________________________________________________
Tel: +32 (02)
6475310 +33 (04)
94732015 Mob: +32
(0497) 549259
E-mail: paul.goldschmidt@skynet.be
Web: www.paulngoldschmidt.eu