(From the archives) Originally posted on January 24, 2013 by markdowe

 EUROPEAN REFERENDUM

Argument For:-

…At last, voters are trusted to choose Britain’s future. David Cameron has given Britain a far better chance of securing a satisfactory settlement with the European Union

David Cameron cannot have imagined when he became Prime Minister that he could conceivably preside over both the break-up of the United Kingdom and its exit from the European Union. The likelihood must be that neither will happen; but the possibility has been raised that both might. Almost out of nowhere, we have an epochal moment in British politics.

The referendum on Scottish independence will take place next year, but the plebiscite on Europe is contingent on a Tory victory at the next election. That, indeed, was one of the principal aims of the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday: not just to address the vexed question of Britain’s position in Europe, but to woo the voters by promising them something they have long wanted, but have not been given since 1975.

Not for the first time, Mr Cameron has shown a capacity to surprise whenever the pressure is greatest. Even though his speech was long-awaited and vigorously debated in advance, it lost none of its impact. It was well judged, elegantly phrased, persuasively argued and expertly delivered. No one should doubt its importance both for domestic politics and for Britain’s foreign policy, which for decades has been based on retaining a central role within the European project. Indeed, despite his criticisms of the current arrangements, Mr Cameron made clear that this remains not just Government policy, but his overwhelming personal preference: he explicitly ruled out the halfway house of a looser association on the Norwegian or Swiss model. Still, while his aim is to campaign to stay within a reformed EU, he proposes that it will be the country, not its politicians, that makes the choice – and has the option to leave.

Politically, the speech was an immediate success. Conservative MPs, who have been agitating for just such a statement, were delighted. Ideally, they will now give their leader some breathing space while the shape of his plans becomes clear, ending the rows that have done much to destabilise the party. Ukip, while outwardly pleased to have the debate finally conducted on its territory, must privately fear that it will now be marginalised. Labour found itself boxed in, with many asking how Ed Miliband can sustain his bizarre position, adopted at Prime Minister’s Questions, that voters should not be offered an in-out referendum, even when so much about Europe is changing so rapidly. For their part, the Liberal Democrats now oppose the very referendum that they promised in their most recent manifesto. Then again, it is a characteristic of the most ardent proponents of the European venture that they consider it dangerous to ask the people what they think.

Rather than listing particular goals, Mr Cameron sought to frame his argument in a wider philosophical context. He argued, entirely correctly, that it would benefit Europe as a whole if its institutions were less bureaucratic and more competitive. He made a powerful case for a more flexible, adaptable and open EU – and observed that we are not alone in Europe in holding such ambitions (hence the cautious welcome that his words received from many on the Continent, including Angela Merkel). Yet if this is not forthcoming, Mr Cameron warned, “we need to safeguard our interests”.

Ultimately, what matters most to Britain is what is best for Britain. Indeed, only when this country is involved does defence of the national interest become something to be sneered at. In Berlin earlier this week, Mrs Merkel and François Hollande celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty, which set the seal on the post-war reconciliation between France and Germany. Ever since, Europe has developed very much in the way decreed by these two countries. As Mrs Merkel said in Berlin, in order to underpin monetary union, the next move will involve greater economic and fiscal integration. That, as Mr Cameron argued, must inevitably change this country’s relationship with the eurozone nations.

Although the UK signed up 40 years ago to the “ever closer union” envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, our leaders have, for much of that time, tried to stop it happening. But the forward momentum has been relentless. Monetary union, the removal of internal borders under the Schengen deal, the proposed harmonisation of justice and home affairs under the Lisbon Treaty, and now the intended fiscal federation in the eurozone, mean Europe is very different from the institution we joined.

Yesterday, David Cameron set out a different vision. He may not be able to bring enough other leaders to share it, but the leverage granted by the prospect of a referendum will give us a far better chance of securing a settlement we can live with. Indeed, many of the arguments in yesterday’s speech were made in another keynote address, delivered by Margaret Thatcher in Bruges in 1988. She, too, bemoaned Europe’s insularity, its lack of accountability, its drift towards federalism, all of which have accelerated since. What even she did not offer, however, was to let the people decide whether they wanted to stay in. In proposing that they should, Mr Cameron has taken an audacious and momentous step, and one deserving of the highest praise.

Argument Against:-

David Cameron’s desperate gamble with Britain’s interests. In practice, his proposals collapse under the weight of their own contradictions

The mistake David Cameron made was in promising a speech on Europe at all. With the eurozone convulsed by crisis and Euroscepticism leaching away political support at home, such a pledge could only raise expectations. Months of hints, delays and postponements only upped the ante. By this morning, when the speech was finally delivered, the Prime Minister was backed into a corner from which only something truly radical could extricate him.

And radical it was. Should the Conservatives win a majority in 2015 then the resulting government will hold an in/out referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017. Thus Mr Cameron fired the starting gun for the next election. He also, despite all the protestations to the contrary, put Britain’s place in Europe in doubt for the first time. The dangers attendant upon such a move can hardly be overstated and the attempts to dress it up as firm leadership – confronting an unavoidable issue so as better to shape the debate – are far from convincing. Indeed, Mr Cameron has allowed his own political pressures to cloud his judgement of Britain’s best interests.

In fact, the Prime Minister’s message was less of a triumph of Euroscepticism than its reception by – among others – Ukip’s Nigel Farage might suggest. Mr Cameron’s analysis of the EU’s shortcomings was couched firmly in terms of his hopes to remedy them. He stressed his desire for Britain to remain at the heart of the Union. He also spoke out against the hackneyed over-simplifications of the naysayers: a solo Britain would not flourish as a non-EU Norway or Switzerland does, he rightly pointed out, and our geopolitical influence would be materially eroded.

Taken in isolation, Mr Cameron’s plan for a new-look Europe also has some appeal. In the lean and hungry trading bloc of the Prime Minister’s imagination, the only non-negotiable is the single market. Everything else is up for grabs. “Cumbersome rigidity” is out, replaced by “speed and flexibility”, a relentless focus on global competition and a political constitution that welcomes members’ diversity rather than trying to “snuff it out”.

So far, so good. Except that Mr Cameron is attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable – to steal the thunder of his political rivals, to knit together a Tory party threatening yet again to tear itself apart over Europe, and to do so with a vision of a re-shaped EU with which even sceptics might grudgingly agree. In practice, his proposals collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.

Pressing ahead with the single market is simply not consistent with a free-for-all of renegotiations and opt-outs. Moreover, if the EU suffers from sclerotic complexity now, the unwieldiness of a pick-and-mix agglomeration of trading areas, travel zones, military agreements, and monetary union can barely be imagined. The politics is trickier still. The “European partners” with whom Mr Cameron must negotiate do not share his conception of Europe as primarily a trading pact. Nor are they inclined to allow Britain to treat Brussels as a buffet from which it may choose what it fancies and leave the rest. The threat of a British exit will not help. It is true that much of Europe, including both Germany and France, are keen for us to remain in the Union. But not at any price.

The only shred of consolation is that, behind the Prime Minister’s deftly crafted clarity, much wriggle room in fact remains. The biggest “if” is the outcome of the 2015 election. It is far from certain that the Conservatives will win the outright majority today’s plans require. Mr Cameron has also avoided nailing his own colours unequivocally to the mast. He talked airily of his commitment to Britain in Europe. He talked of powers on the environment, social affairs and crime handed back to member states. But he carefully eschewed specifics – either as to what he hopes to achieve, or as to how he will vote in the promised referendum if he fails.

Hopes of a fudge to come are, at best, cold comfort. Five years of uncertainty on so fundamental an issue would be damaging at any time. With the economy flatlining, they are potentially catastrophic. That the Prime Minister’s latest move is so at odds with his avowed intention for Britain to be a hub for global investment only underlines his desperation.

What now? The public mind is, thankfully, far from made up on Europe; opinion polls record a sharp rise in pro-EU sentiment in recent months. It is up to Britain’s Europhiles to rise to the challenge. That means the business community making clear what is at stake. It means Nick Clegg shaking off his Coalition loyalties. It means Ed Miliband sticking to today’s claim to be against an in/out referendum, even as pressure builds in the run-up to 2015.

The irony is that Mr Cameron himself counselled against hasty action today. If only he had followed his own advice. Instead, as Mr Farage gleefully noted, the genie is now out of the bottle. Britain is the loser.

Reactions:

• Emma Reynolds: Bad for British business

The prime minister’s speech today demonstrated that he is following rather than leading his own backbenchers on the issue of Europe. Instead of promoting the national interest, his speech focused on addressing the deep divisions within the Conservative party. It has more to do with his party’s interest than it does with foreign policy.

Announcing a referendum today to take place in 2017 is bad for British business and could dangerously jeopardise vital inward investment at precisely the time when the economy most needs it. Cameron has ignored the warnings from British business leaders about the deeply damaging effects of this uncertainty on our economy.

He has also ignored the friendly advice of President Obama and many European leaders that the UK’s influence is much stronger as part of the world’s largest single market and trading bloc.

Cameron may want to claim credit for making this announcement after much delay and dither – but in reality it has only created more uncertainty. His speech could put at risk our fragile economic recovery and diminish the UK’s influence in the world. The prime minister has quite simply addressed the wrong priorities at the wrong time and has failed the challenge of leadership.

–       Emma Reynolds is Labour MP for Wolverhampton North East and shadow minister for Europe

• Nigel Farage: Ukip’s biggest victory to date

The very fact that we are talking about the possibility of Britain leaving the European Union is Ukip’s biggest victory to date.

Even five years ago the thought of this issue being even discussed was an anathema and it is a great triumph for the tens of thousands of Ukip members and supporters that they have, through calm and passionate arguments, put it on the nation’s agenda.

Today we heard the skeleton of the yes side’s argument, how the prime minister will lead a yes vote. We saw how he refuses to answer the question as to whether, given he will fail in his proposed negotiations, he will support an out.

It is clear the prime minister has been forced by public opinion to offer a referendum but it is also clear that the options he offers are no options at all.

Our friends on the continent have no intention of giving anything more than lip service to the repatriation of powers. They might let us catch herrings in the Solent but not much more.

The genie is out of the bottle: the fight for our country’s liberty starts today

–       Nigel Farage is leader of Ukip

• Maria Margaronis: The speech of a beleaguered Tory prime minister

How different Europe looks from above and from below. For David Cameron, the main problem with the EU is that it prevents British businesses from exploiting their workers more so that they can compete with China: he wants the single market without the social safeguards. For the demonstrators he mentions as evidence of Europe’s failings in Athens, Madrid and Rome, the problem is the opposite: their social safeguards have been slashed to meet the needs of the market. He says he wants the EU to succeed (“Darling, I only want what’s best for both of us”) but won’t engage with the tension that’s always been at its core, between self-interest and solidarity.

Of course, this wasn’t meant as the speech of a European leader. It was an attempt by a beleaguered Tory prime minister to keep his options open while pacifying Ukip and the Tory right. Despite a reference to the rubble of Berlin the mood music was all English: the skies of London lit by flames; Churchill; Caesar’s legions; a train-wreck of a metaphor about caravans and sidings.

–       Maria Margaronis is London correspondent for The Nation

• Imke Henkel: A raw speech, but brilliant in parts

When David Cameron had finished his multiple times postponed speech I wondered whether he still might have given it too early, before his thinking on Europe was properly done. What he said felt raw and in many parts like work in progress.

There were many brilliant bits. My favourite was: “There is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf.” This is indeed true not just in Britain but equally in Germany and many other EU-member states. And it is about time to address this frustration.

For far too long in pro-European countries such as Germany any doubts about the democratic accountability of the institutions in Brussels were dismissed as anti-European. This them-and-us spirit (like under Thatcher, just the other way round), that also reigns in Brussels in sometimes fearful ways, has to end now and make room for the very difficult debate about how to reform the EU institutions so that European citizens do feel represented by them. Cameron made clear that he does not believe in a European demos. It certainly does not exist now. But shall we therefore just forget about it instead of aiming to create it?

–       Imke Henkel is the London correspondent of the German weekly Focus

• Andrea Leadsom: A clear choice for the country

David Cameron is right to say that Europe must change and the EU needs to serve the interests of the British people much better. The status quo in Britain’s relationship with the EU is no longer an option. The eurozone is moving towards fiscal and banking union, and this is not a path that the British people will go down. With such fundamental change inevitable, it is right that the prime minister seeks to negotiate a deal that promotes our national interest.

And when significant changes occur, it is also right that the British people are given the opportunity to decide the nature of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. The Labour government denied the people that choice under the Lisbon treaty negotiations and that was hugely damaging.

The PM’s speech sets out a clear choice for the country: under a Conservative government, the UK will negotiate a new settlement with the EU and voters will be given a say. I believe the country will unite behind this approach and we can focus our efforts on a robust but achievable renegotiation to establish a relationship with Europe that the majority of British people are comfortable with at last.

–       Andrea Leadsom is Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire

• Mark Boleat: The UK must stay a gateway to Europe and beyond

The prime minister’s speech set out a vision that makes clear the UK remains committed to engaging fully with Europe – albeit on better terms.

Such an explicit commitment is crucial to safeguarding against uncertainty that could potentially damage the City, the UK and ultimately Europe. This is particularly vital given that the lengthy timetable for the planned referendum – scheduled to take place by 2017 – in itself risks delaying important investment decisions by international businesses in the City.

London’s position as Europe’s leading international financial and business centre plays an integral role in sustaining jobs and growth not just in the UK but across the continent. Uncertainty over this relationship with Europe risks making the UK less attractive as an international centre across many industries – not just financial and professional services – by clouding the business environment.

It is vital, therefore, that we are up front about the need for the UK to remain a full member of the European Union, continue to operate completely within the single market and continue to have its say on EU regulations affecting us. Europe needs to adapt and meet the competitiveness challenge posed by the changing global economic landscape.

The defining characteristic of London is its international nature. In order to remain a gateway to Europe and beyond, the UK needs to fully engage with our EU partners to make sure that this relationship works for both sides.

–       Mark Boleat is chairman of the policy and resources committee of the City of London

• Guy Verhofstadt: He risks pleasing nobody

David Cameron tried to please everybody, but there were so many inherent contradictions that in the end he risks pleasing nobody.

First, Cameron said the EU must work together to fight crime and terrorism, reiterating his recent statement that the threat of terrorism requires an international response. But then he said he wants to opt out of European police and judicial co-operation measures. Would this really be in the national interest, or merely a way to appease his deluded backbench Tories?

Cameron also claims he wants Britain to stay in the heart of the single market and that this should be based on a common set of rules. But immediately after he demands a flexible Europe and opt-outs for Britain in areas such as social and employment legislation. Similarly, Cameron asked why there is not a single market council. But he ignored the fact that there is already a competitiveness council to examine precisely these issues.

Cameron is right that the EU needs reform. Indeed it is already doing so as a result of the financial crisis. But instead of making undeliverable demands, he should be working with his allies in Europe to reform the EU as a whole, making it more efficient, democratic and able to meet the many challenges facing us in the 21st century,

–       Guy Verhofstadt is president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

• Katinka Barysch: A counterproductive strategy of blackmail

Germany, France and other EU countries have indicated that they want to accommodate Cameron to help Britain to stay in the union. What they simply cannot do is to allow Britain a pick-and-choose membership in response to the threat of withdrawal. Why should Britain be allowed to flout some club rules but not Poland, Denmark or Ireland?

Of course Cameron’s EU strategy is driven by domestic constraints. To some extent this is true for all European leaders. However, Cameron and his cabinet colleagues have time and again called for other EU leaders, most importantly the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, to overrule domestic public opinion and lead in the euro crisis. This would have been the opportunity for Cameron to show leadership by telling his party and his people where Britain’s real interests lie and what a smart EU strategy looks like.

Cameron is right to defend the sanctity of the single market as the eurozone countries move towards fiscal union and more stringent economic rules. He is also right to object to financial market regulation that would substantially harm the City of London. It is these things that Cameron should spend his political firepower on. Not on trying to get an opt-out from the working time directive or fisheries policy or other parts of a “new deal”. By adopting a strategy of blackmail he is in fact undermining his ability to fight for Britain’s interests.

–       Katinka Barysch is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform in London