Foreign Affairs Select Committee welcomes "Double Majority" voting at the EBA as concrete example of UK influence in Europe

Double majority lock voting at the EBA was a
significant and valuable use of UK influence

In a report published today the influential cross-party House of Commons Foreign Select Affairs Committee commended David Cameron "for launching an ambitious agenda for EU reform". The full report, including evidence presented by Open Europe, also makes a number of sensible observations such as:

"the point of a Member State having influence in the EU is to achieve EU policy outcomes that realise its interests and objectives."

We agree - too often the EU is described by politicians in terms of "influence" and being "at the table" something that looks (and often is) of more benefit to politicians than those they serve - something we pointed out in our evidence:

"Open Europe contended that 'influence’ is a term too often used in a rather lazy and undefined way”. Open Europe argued that the debate on UK influence in the EU should focus on identifying the concrete cases where the UK should exercise influence and had or had not done so."

One case made of very tough concrete we brought to the MPs attention is the tricky issue of EU voting weights:

"Open Europe reminded us that from 2014 the Eurozone states will command sufficient weighted votes in the Council of the EU to muster the qualified majority required to take Single Market decisions alone."

For this reason we have argued consistently that the UK needs a new safeguard to protect itself from Eurozone caucusing. The test case for this was the adoption of "Double majority" voting in the EBA - originally proposed by Open Europe.

The achievement of this new "double majority" was therefore a genuine success for UK diplomacy and has a significance well beyond that of the EBA. We are therefore glad the Committee picked up on it. As they conclude:

"The agreement on the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) which was struck among EU Finance Ministers in December 2012 was significant on several grounds. It shows what the UK can achieve, in terms of protecting its position in the Single Market, through close and constructive engagement and innovative policy solutions."

"We note that the deal went some way towards entrenching the kind of safeguard against discrimination in the Single Market that the Government failed to secure in the December 2011 negotiations on the ‘fiscal compact’. We also note that the arrangements that were agreed to protect non-Eurozone states—on this occasion, for ‘double majority’ voting in the European Banking Authority—responded directly to a concrete proposal (in this case, one which gave rise directly to a risk of caucusing)."

They could not have put it better.

This is welcome stuff: David Lidington says national parliaments could be given a 'red card' over EU proposals

National Parliaments' should be allowed
to show the EU the red card

This is an idea that's very close to our hearts - and an idea that we have promoted for a very long time.

The first bits of UK Europe Minister David Lidington's interview with German daily Die Welt have just been published on the paper's webpage. We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see the full version. But from what we can see so far, Lidington's interview is likely to reverberate quite a bit across Europe.

He said,

"Perhaps we should lower the threshold for national parliaments to take action against initiatives from Brussels; perhaps we should introduce the principle of a 'red card' so that a given number of national parliaments can block initiatives from the [European] Commission."

Sounds familiar? Well, the 'red card' was first advocated by Open Europe in 2011 in our report 'The case for European Localism'. And again by Lidington's PPS Tobias Ellwood MP in a publication for Open Europe in December 2012, where he argued:

"Any future [EU] Treaty change should include some system of the red card system with the right quota and powers."

A red card is an improvement over a yellow

Open Europe's Director Mats Persson pushed the idea in the Telegraph here in January. Under the Lisbon Treaty, if a third of national parliaments show the Commission the current 'yellow card', the Commission is obliged to reconsider its proposal and explain why it wants to change it, scrap it or push ahead with it. To date, the Commission has withdrawn a proposal in only one case after being shown the 'yellow card' - the so-called 'Monti II' Regulation on the right to strike.

However, this provision has several weaknesses. First, it doesn't oblige the Commission to actually drop the proposal, but only to reconsider it. So it's a far cry from a veto. Secondly, it's only supposed to happen on 'subsidiarity' grounds - and not on 'proportionality'. Thirdly, a third of parliaments are supposed to agree within an eight-week window, meaning that if the Commission tables a proposal in August or September - when most parliaments are in recess - it can basically push ahead with anything.

In other words, it really doesn't do that much to close the EU's infamous democratic deficit. Nor to strengthen the powers of national MPs - an aspect which, as we've argued repeatedly, is absolutely vital if the EU is to regain democratic legitimately.

Therefore, a 'red card' provision giving a certain number of national parliaments acting in unison (the threshold needs to be discussed) an actual veto right, would be an absolutely massive improvement. This is also an area where the UK will have support from Germany and others if it pitches it right.

In the interview, Lidington also pointed out that several times in the past,

"the content of [EU] treaties has been interpreted in a way which was not desired or expected at the time the treaty changes were decided on. Sometimes, the European Commission or the European Parliament try to expand the boundaries of their competences." 

The Europe Minister also stressed that the EU's single market for services is "painfully underdeveloped". echoing similar remarks on the importance of deepening the single market before. However, this time they come after he said that Open Europe's proposals to reignite the EU's services sector and boost EU-wide GDP by up to €294bn were "interesting" and "worth exploring".

More please!

Go local

Today we publish a report, written by ex-head of Policy Exchange Anthony Browne and our Director Mats Persson, suggesting a fresh EU strategy for the UK government - European localism. In yesterday's Sunday Times, we trailed the piece, arguing:

"closer union cannot continue for ever. In some ways the EU is already more centralised than a country — individual American states have more freedom over sales tax than do EU members. And what was right 50 years ago is not necessarily right now. When challenges change, so should institutions.

The euro crisis has tested to destruction the principle of ever closer union — its momentum required Greece to join the euro when it was not ready, directly leading to turmoil. As the crisis has unfolded, the debate has moved to an existential question: what kind of Europe do Europeans want?"

We go on to say:

"Popular support for the EU has plummeted even in the countries that were once most supportive and national parliaments have grown restive because their powers are being usurped. The euro crisis is also forcing Europe to develop a more variable approach to co-operation, with countries integrating at different speeds.

The EU is ripe for change and this presents Britain with an opportunity to push forward its own strategy — which we call European localism. Since it joined in 1973 Britain has never shared the strategic vision of ever closer union, but nor has it had an alternative strategy of its own. As a result it has remained disengaged from Brussels, focusing on defensive tactics limiting the perceived damage of European legislation, rather than trying to steer the direction of the EU. This is an unsatisfactory position."

But, we argue, in the wake of the crisis,

"Britain can position itself as the champion of European localism, taking the principles and rhetoric of localism widely endorsed at a national level and applying them at a European level. The same arguments apply: if you devolve where possible and centralise only where necessary, you get better democratic engagement, more flexibility and better policy making."

As we note in our press release, in terms of concrete proposals, this would include:

• Parliament should be given the right to approve the UK appointment of judges to the European Court of Justice, to hear their views on European integration, just as Congress approves presidential appointments to the Supreme Court in the US;

• The Government should consider taking the European Commission to the European Court of Justice for breaches of subsidiarity, the legal principle underpinning localism that is now enshrined as a founding principle of the EU in the Lisbon Treaty;

• The role of national parliaments should be strengthened by a new “red card” mechanism, whereby if two thirds – or in particularly sensitive areas, half – of national parliaments express concerns about EU legislation or European Court of Justice rulings, then the EU would have to abandon legislation or overturn the ruling;

• The UK Parliament should work with other national parliaments to set up an “Inter-parliamentary Task Force on Localism”, acting independently from EU institutions, to ensure that the EU does not involve itself in issues that should be left to national governments;

• A new mechanism should be introduced enabling member states to repatriate powers over certain policy areas, even if all 27 countries do not want to do so, resulting in a variable, more democratic Europe where powers can flow both to and from Brussels;

• The Government should use its legal rights under the Lisbon Treaty to unilaterally repatriate up to 90 Justice and Home Affairs laws, and should prioritise other areas where it wants to repatriate powers;

• The Government should subject all significant EU proposals to a robust subsidiarity test, and should hold the European Commission to account for rejecting parliament’s complaints about breaches of the subsidiarity principle;

• The Government should lobby for a new European Subsidiarity Court, to uphold breaches of subsidiarity;

• The Foreign Office should set up a ‘European Localism Unit’ to drive the localism agenda across Whitehall departments affected by the EU;

• Form a ‘localism bloc’ of like-minded EU nations, starting with a conference in London.

As we conclude in the Sunday Times piece, This "is a strategy that should command wide cross-party support in Britain and enable us at last to engage fully in the EU."

Two vetoes for the price of one

In Parliament this afternoon, David Cameron gave his statement on last week's EU summit, followed by questions from MPs. The debate was a bit all over the place if we're to be perfectly honest, with the 2.9% increase to the EU's 2011 budget dominating.

The most talked about intervention came from Ed Miliband who said in response to Cameron's alleged cave-in on the EU budget freeze for 2011: “He wished he could come back and say No, No No, but in his case it's a bit more like No, Maybe, Oh go on then.” (apparently a phrase Miliband didn't quite come up with himself).

On actual substance, Chris Heaton-Harris made the most astute observation. He noted that the PM now has two separate vetoes at his disposal: one over Treaty change and one over the EU budget post-2013. Heaton-Harris asked whether Cameron would use the two vetoes independently to achieve EU reform. As we’ve argued before, a twin-track approach to EU negotiations is by far the smartest way to achieve reform in Europe and the restoration of some democratic control over key EU powers.

If the two vetoes are used in parallel but for seperate issues - one for repatriation of powers and the other for concessions on the CAP for instance - we bet anyone (eurosceptics and federalists alike) that the Coalition government will get at least one game-changing concession in return.

The Coalition could even get other member states along for the ride if it's confident and strategic enough. After all, Merkel has given us a great example for how to do it.

Unfortunately, in response to Heaton-Harris and also earlier in the debate, Cameron hinted he would pass up his veto over the treaty change, effectively giving EU partners a two-vetoes-for-the-price-of-one deal.

Hopefully this isn't the end of the story though, as there's still much to play for before Treaty changes are agreed. But MPs need to get their line of argument in order or the Coalition might well go for the do-nothing option.

For Cameron to use the twin-vetoes separately but in parallel, is surely what backbenchers in favour of EU refom should be pushing for?