• Facebook
  • Facebook
  • Facebook
  • Facebook

Search This Blog

Visit our new website.

Friday, March 02, 2012

What will the next Conservative manifesto say on Europe?

Over on Conservativehome we have an article highlighting the importance of and looking at potential senarios for the next Conservative election manifesto:

The discussions at the EU summit will inevitably focus on Greece and the eurozone and so mercifully the UK will again largely be a spectator. However, EU leaders are also seeking to further advance the “fiscal compact”, which Cameron refused to sign up to back in December, again highlighting how the end point for the UK is inevitably different to that of the eurozone. It is now settled that the UK will never join the Euro, and neither can it subscribe to further integration - yet the eurozone is speeding towards fiscal union and all EU states bar the UK and Denmark are legally obliged to join. It is therefore clear that, at some point new membership terms will need to be defined, but how? Crucial to this will be what becomes policy in the Conservative Party’s next manifesto.
David Cameron on 4 November 2009

We have a precedent to follow as we have been here before, (in November 2009) - the last time the Conservatives set out detailed proposals on the UK’s relationship with the EU. The Czech President had just bowed to the inevitable and signed the Lisbon Treaty, creating a strategic problem for the party leadership that it could no longer ignore. On the one hand Conservative MPs, (and more importantly candidates) were viscerally hostile to the Treaty, generally believed the EU had gone too far and wanted powers back. On the other the Conservative leadership did not to wish promise anything it knew would be difficult to deliver and (rightly or wrongly) to say anything that could lead to a hostile reaction from Sarkozy and Merkel. What came out of the frantic internal discussions was set out in a speech by David Cameron’s on 4 November 2009.

The speech committed the Conservatives to an attempt to undo some effects of the Lisbon Treaty but not to full scale renegotiation and definitely not a referendum, apart from on future transfers of power to Brussels. But David Cameron also stated “of course we can return to this subject in a manifesto for the parliament after the next one…” and, in the event he failed to achieve his ends:

“we would not rule out a referendum on a wider package of guarantees to protect our democratic decision-making, while remaining, of course, a member of the European Union.”

So it is Conservative policy (Coalition excuses aside) to consider a referendum if it proves impossible to achieve anything this Parliament – which is looking increasingly likely. And the million dollar question: a referendum on what, exactly?
7 manifesto options

Well, here are the options that could go in a manifesto:

In/out, binary referendum: This would commit the Conservatives to a public vote on EU membership, with the options being the status quo versus full withdrawal from the EU.
Pros: It would post a clear, binary question in a referendum and satisfy a fraction of the parliamentary party.
Cons: Both answers would be wrong. A "stay in" would kill off efforts to radically reform the EU (which an overwhelming majority of the British electorate wants), while an "out" vote would trigger more questions than it answers (e.g. alternatives to membership – EEA, Swiss-style bilateral deals, Customs Union, WTO rules). The referendum campaign would also fundamentally split the Conservatives while uniting everyone else (Lib Dems, Labour, Business and Media).

No referendum – a manifesto commitment to renegotiate: A commitment to seek to renegotiate its membership terms and so gain a popular mandate via the general election.
Pros: It gives an incoming government flexibility to negotiate when the time is right.
Cons: It does not answer the desire for a referendum or give an explicit and provide the forceful show of opinion that might be needed to aid negotiations.

A mandating referendum: This seems to be what David Cameron was hinting at in 2009. A referendum would grant the government a mandate to renegotiate the treaties with the other EU states.
Pros: It could give a clear expression of the British people’s desire to repatriate powers.
Cons: It would immediately bog an incoming government down in a referendum campaign many people would not understand. What happens if nothing is achieved in the negotiations? What happens if the referendum fails to attract a good turnout or people vote no? It would be a bit like holding a referendum on who we want to win the Euro 2012.

A confirmatory referendum: An alternative to the above is to promise to renegotiate the UK’s EU membership and put the outcome of the negotiations to a referendum.
Pros: It is clear what the electorate are giving their approval to.
Cons: If nothing much is achieved people in favour of a wider negotiation may not vote, feel let down or potentially vote No. What happens if they vote no?

A mandatory and confirmatory referendum: This option would allow for two referenda - one before renegotiation and one after.
Pros: It is the purest option democratically and it’s clear what the vote would be on.
Cons: It could involve voter fatigue and shares some of the pitfalls of 2 and 3 above.

A reserved referendum: In this case the manifesto would commit the Government to renegotiation, but with the ‘nuclear option’ of a far wider referendum if the negotiations fail to achieve a significant repatriation of power.
Pros: This would give the incoming Government some bargaining power, would show it meant business and give it some flexibility.
Cons: It would be up to the government to decide if its negotiating mandate had been met so potentially avoiding a more in-depth examination of the UK’s membership of the EU.

A multi-stage, multi-option referendum: A final option, which is gaining traction, is to combine some of the above scenarios. This could involve French-style rounds of referenda, i.e. a first round would involve in, out or renegotiate, with a second round involving a vote on the two runner-ups.
Pros: It would fairly capture the options on the table and potentially give a UK government a very strong mandate.
Cons: Again, some of the same problems re-emerge, for example, when will the electorate vote, ahead of the re-negotiation or afterwards? The whole process could also become prohibitively complex.

There’s then the question of what would actually be entailed in a re-negotiation package with respect to what powers a government would actually wish to ask back. Working with an All Party Parliamentary Group on EU reform, Open Europe is currently setting out a number of areas where powers, in various forms, could flow back to the UK, putting its relationship with Europe on a sustainable footing (see here, here, here and here ).

The ground is moving under our feet - the status quo is no longer an option.
Which one will they chose and why?
We still have a long way to go, and more so than in any other area, the Conservatives may be overtaken by events, as it’s still anyone’s guess exactly where the eurozone – and therefore the EU – is heading. But it’s absolutely clear that Conservatives, of all ranks, need to start to seriously think this through. Which way will the Conservative leadership jump?


9 comments:

Rik said...

1. There are 2 important factors re integration with Europe or de-integration with it.
a) Do you want further integration at all;
b) do you want it in the coming period and/or is it wise to take those steps.
2. Whatever your answer is on a), the answer on b)is you have to stay away from it for the coming years at least. Mainly for 2 reasons:
a)it is in a mess and all measures taken are mainly kicking the can and furthermore very expensive.
b) any solution is doubtful to work in practice (like the fiscal compact) and an experiment of which the outcome is highly uncertain. We see with eg Greece that there is no free Euro lunch.
You can be made to pay for other peoples mistakes and to make it worse those other people are countries like Greece and Italy which have proven themselves very unreliable partners.
So it is not only a technical experiment but also a membership experiment (being in one club with unreliable and unnatural partners).

Another point is the EZ is likely to turn into a low/no growth zone. Its South is not much further than say China only with 10X higher wages. Before that is adressed decades will pass. Either build out sectors that are worldclass or get much cheaper (much lower wages (and other costs) and/or much lower taxes).
Its North also with a pricing problem will have to use it surplusses to finance the economic disaster the South is and reduce together with the aging effect overall growth to close to zero.
The problem likely will be adressed sometime but as we see in the PIIGS that will take ages.
3. So whatever your views are longer term on the shorter term it is plainly stupid to join that club.
While the advantages are marginal, being able to have your own monetary policy is very helpful for the UK as it is having a national financial legislation iso a mainly 'social democratic' one, that will likely make a large part of your financial sector move elsewhere.
4. What are the advantages of the EZ:
-trade;
-global player in international politics.
5. Re trade that is mainly:
-free trade;
-same standards.
6. To start with the last part that isnot really working properly.
The basic idea is good, but in practice unnecessarily rules are made up that simply make goods more expensive to produce, with no proper reason.
7. Free trade is the main advantage.
8. World player. Europe is nowhere near that. Having a clown for its foreign policy doesnot help, but indicates that there is a long way to go.
9. Anyway usually it is France, Germany and the UK who discuss things and act. And basically the UK is the strongest party in that and the only one that can do realistically something military abroad.
Anyway you need the US basically for everything and Belgium and Slovakia to name a few are hardly relevant.
10. Also from a political point of view the EZ/EU simply doesnot look stable. It politicians might be in agreement. But it is a decade or longer project; high on the (voters') agenda; populist parties rising in polls; huge conflicts of interest anyway; several elections during that process.
Which means that it is likely that something might happen. In which countries? When? We donot know yet, maybe even all goes well.
However in general a substantial chance of problems only from which angle is hard to predict.
11. Also from that respect further integration is not a good strategic move.
12. So in my view membership in the EU looks benificial at least for the free-trade part. For the rest a reneg is likely the most benificial. Get as much as possible un-economical and expensive measures out. Via which way is imho less relevant.
13. Looking at what the UK's population wants. It will be something like that as well.
As a member if it is possible, like a new Norway or Switzerland if it must.
14. In this respect getting closer ties with main players Russia and Turkey could be helpful. Especially re the standards part. Together with the UK these form enough markets to make some demands realistically in that respect.

Rollo said...

Does it make any difference what is promised in the Manifesto? Lord Haw Haw lied last time and doubtless will next time.

Rollo said...

Does it make any difference what promises are made in the manifesto? Lord Haw Haw lied last time and will again.

Rollo said...

Rik, there is no free trade into the EU,
We export worldwide, but cannot into the EU. For example we had a £1,500,000 order for an aircraft hangar for FRance; after 6 months of failing to get permission, we and our French client had to abort the project. Protectionism is endemic

Rik said...

@rollo
I didnot say the free-trade part of the EU worked perfect. I only said that the free-trade part is most likely beneficial for the UK.

Without the EU it would likely be considerably worse. Nearly all countries have low growth, high unemployment, are too expensive worldwide and are ruled by not to intelligent politicians with basically only short term interest.

The example you gave is probably on a scale from 0 to 100 (100 being complete freetrade) pretty close to 0. It is not trading goods but construction, with something likely government related and with France (not the most open nation in the EU).

Idris Francis said...

Does anyone seriously imagine that euroscpetics are ever going to believe another Cameron promise on the EU? Come off it!

The ONLY thing that will satisfy us would be an unequocal commitment to a referendum on leaving the EU, wth all MPs and Ministers free to vote either way - as in 1975.

And equal funding and air-time for both sides - and the BBC politicaal and political news sections closed down for the duration of the campaign.

And perhaps not even that will do - the better and more realistic option is to continue efforts to remove CameClegg from office.

Pete Chown said...

I don't see what a mandating referendum would achieve. Effectively it would ask, 'Do you want the government to seek the best deal for Britain in EU negotiations?' Obviously the answer would be yes. At the same time, other member states would negotiate for their own interests, so we may not get what we want.

Polling suggests that a three way question (in, out or renegotiate) would see a large majority for renegotiating. It is essential that we avoid this outcome, because it wouldn't resolve anything. It's unrealistic to expect that the other member states would suddenly agree to our demands, so nothing would change. We would remain in the EU but vaguely dissatisfied, with no mandate either to leave or to join the emerging federal Europe.

Pete Chown said...

I don't see what a mandating referendum would achieve. Effectively it would ask, 'Do you want the government to seek the best deal for Britain in EU negotiations?' Obviously the answer would be yes. At the same time, other member states would negotiate for their own interests, so we may not get what we want.

Polling suggests that a three way question (in, out or renegotiate) would see a large majority for renegotiating. It is essential that we avoid this outcome, because it wouldn't resolve anything. It's unrealistic to expect that the other member states would suddenly agree to our demands, so nothing would change. We would remain in the EU but vaguely dissatisfied, with no mandate either to leave or to join the emerging federal Europe.

britlag said...

A strategically chosen question on a referendum ballot paper can oftensuggest or determine the answer.
cf Alex Salmond,s suggested question for the Scots. "Do you agree that Scotland should be independent?". A heavily loaded question.

Just print two diagrams
(a) The Union Jack
(b) The EU emblem - the star-spangled circle

Then CHOOSE