Owen Paterson: Has he called for #Brexit or #EUReform?

BBC reports is is #Brexit

Former Cabinet Minister Owen Paterson has just made a hard hitting speech on the UK’s relationship with the EU. He made a familiar case that the EU is as much a political union as an economic one. He concluded that the UK should remain in the ‘economic’ Single Market but remove itself from the political union.

A clear position? Well, staying in the Single Market, while removing the political aspects of the EU can mean different things – it could mean remaining in the EU while pairing back the worst aspects of the EU’s state building or leaving altogether and negotiating instead a trade agreement in order to retain access to the Single Market.

There has been some understandable ambiguity in the reporting of Paterson’s position, this is our under-standing:

Times reports it is "reform"

Firstly, Paterson believes the issue should be solved via a referendum in 2017. But his proposed question is not entity straight forward. His preferred options are:

Yes: The UK leaves the EU and joins the EEA, like Norway; or
No: The UK stays in the EU and joins the euro

An interesting choice, that excludes the possibility of better EU terms or even continuing as a non-Euro state. However, it is clear that Paterson’s negotiation is not a ‘re-negotiation’ but a simple negotiation for #Brexit. He favours joining Iceland, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Norway in EFTA and joining EFTA’s deal with the EU – known as the EEA (of which Switzerland is not part). And in order to conclude his exit terms and EEA membership he seeks to use a provision of the Lisbon Treaty that allows a two year period after notifying the EU of an intention to exit to attempt to finalise continuity terms – Article 50. We're sceptical of the EEA model as an alternative for the UK outside the EU, at least as currently set out, but let's leave that one to the side for the moment.

It has been argued previously that Article 50 could be used to trigger a full renegotiation of the terms of the UK’s membership within the EU. However Paterson’s proposal is more straightforward – he wants to immediately start to negotiate Brexit terms in 2015 so that a clear proposition is on the table for the 2017 referendum. That may have the benefit of providing the clarity that has so far been lacking in the ‘out’ case – but has three obvious drawbacks.

1. What happens if the other EU states do not wish to negotiate prior to a referendum outcome – they cannot be forced to.
2. What happens if the UK votes to stay in – would the other EU member states be compelled to cancel the exit application? Perhaps but at what price?
3. Article 50 isn't a great negotiating tool. We have previously weighed up the pros and cons of using Article 50 below, but what's clear is that it's giving away a lot leverage over the UK's terms of exit (for example, the final deal will be decided by a qualified majority vote of which the UK won't be part).

Source: Gaming Europe's Future by Open Europe

Paterson may however argue that Article 50 is a legal mechanism and something as important as the UK’s membership will ultimately be decided politically, in the UK and the EU level.

Boris is right to set out an ambitious EU reform agenda

As we noted in an earlier post, London Mayor Boris Johnson's intervention on the UK's future relationship with the EU set out a list of policy objectives that go well beyond what David Cameron has so far proposed. They noticeably set the bar higher for any successful renegotiation.

Boris also told the Evening Standard this week that the UK had to go into the negotiations prepared to be tough. "You don’t go in hard to the tackle you are never going to come out well. You've got to go in hard and low," he said. Judging by his past form, he means business:

Here are the key reforms that Boris outlined, which embellished on those contained in the report authored for him by his economic advisor Dr Gerard Lyons - a member of our Advisory Council. They are an excellent marker for the direction in which the EU needs to go and most of them are reforms we have ourselves proposed and promoted:

• Make progress on the single market in services: The report for the Mayor cites Open Europe's research which illustrates that an ambitious liberalisation of cross-border trade in services could boost EU GDP by 2.3%. This is in fact a call for free trade that could boost competitiveness across the EU - the UK should push this policy hard and, if others aren't willing to agree en masse, be prepared to lead a vanguard of countries who are.  
• Better protection for the City of London from intrusive financial services regulation: A long-standing concern for us. We have noted that, since the eurozone crisis, the EU's regulatory output in this area has become far more trade-restricting and items such as the FTT were outright hostile to the City of London. This ties into the eurozone/non-eurozone point below, and why mechanisms to ensure that the single market cannot be controlled by the eurozone-bloc are essential to the UK's interests.
• Reform the relationship between euro ins and outs: This is arguably the biggest strategic issue facing the UK in Europe - and the report goes into far more detail on this than Boris did in his speech. The UK will not be able to live within an EU dominated by the eurozone. The ad-hoc solution used in the European Banking Authority of so-called 'double majority voting', which we were the first to propose, illustrates that this can be addressed but how easily this model can be replicated elsewhere is debatable and other solutions will be needed.
• A 'red card' for national parliaments: Again, a policy we have long championed. This is something that has support in several member states and would if member states and the Commission are serious about respecting it, root EU policy making more firmly in the hands of those with most democratic legitimacy in Europe - national MPs. 
• Reform "if not abolition" of the CAP: Abolition of the CAP is clearly a tall order, but we have set out how agricultural policy could be radically reworked which would hugely reduce the budget required and make it more market-orientated. Another budget reform we would through into the mix, which Boris didn't mention, is the repatriation of regional funding to the richer member states
• A return to intergovernmental cooperation in justice and home affairs, outside the jurisdiction of the EU: We have long argued that the ECJ should not have jurisdiction over crime and policing law as it applies to the UK and that the UK should seek a return to intergovernmental cooperation that does not cede democratic control over such a sensitive area.
• Reforming social and employment law: Boris talked of minimising "the costs to all EU businesses", but also said that if this meant resurrecting the UK's social policy opt-out, "I don’t think it will be a bad thing." We have calculated that EU social law currently costs UK business and the public sector £8.6bn a year - a figure also cited by Boris in his speech - and while these costs would not magically disappear if this area was left to national governments, there would be far more flexibility to tailor rules to local needs and practises - i.e. the UK's flexible labour market.
• On free movement of people, Boris called for "managed migration": Here Boris went further than Gerard's report. Boris seems to be calling for the principle of free movement to be revisited. It's not entirely clear what he means but we have long argued that EU migration can provide benefits to the UK and EU economy but that reform is certainly needed to the rules around access benefits for EU migrants. This means far more discretion for national governments over who can access state welfare and public services and on what terms. However, we do think the principle of free movement of workers - as originally intended - should remain. 
• Halting 'ever closer union': Often dismissed as a symbolic change, in fact this is about changing the culture of the EU and the default position that centralisation is always good. It is about instilling the principle that not all member states want to head in the same direction and that powers should be able to move downwards from Brussels to national capitals.

This is a reform agenda that would indeed radically reform the EU and the UK's relationship with it. As we have noted elsewhere, if there is a referendum in 2017, the British public will be far better placed than in 1975 to decide if the change is enough to vote for and that  is why the stakes are now so high. As we also have noted, however, the big challenge will be the timetable. Will this be possible before 2017?

Boris: EU reform the best option, but Brexit should not scare us

Boris Johnson today outlined his response to the report by his economic advisor - and Open Europe board member - Dr Gerard Lyons on the future of the UK’s relations with the EU and how they impact on London.

The report entitled 'a win-win situation' outlines four economic scenarios, with the best seen as staying in a reformed EU and the a close second being leaving the EU on good terms with growth-focussed policies towards Europe and the rest of the world:

• The best scenario is UK membership of a reformed EU, which could see London’s economy grow in size from £350 billion now to £640 billion over the next 20 years.
• The worst scenario would be where the UK leaves the EU on bad terms and does not produce a growth-focused policy. The report suggests the London economy would only grow to £430 billion by 2034 in this scenario, and see a shedding of about 1.2 million jobs. 
• If the UK left the EU, maintained good relations with the EU and adopted outward-looking policies, then the London economy would grow to £615 billion and see an additional 900,000 jobs created over the next 20 years. This is despite the near-term uncertainty that would follow from leaving.
• Being in an unreformed EU, London might see only an extra 200,000 jobs created and growth to £495 billion over two decades.

The key reforms - which draw heavily from Open Europe's work - proposed in the report are: addressing the relationship between euro ins and outs, liberalising the single market in services, safeguards on the single market in financial services and the position of the City of London, EU budget reform, reducing the burden of social and employment law, and halting over-regulation. The reforms go well beyond what David Cameron has set out so far.

If reform is not sufficient, the report concedes that withdrawal would create immediate economic uncertainty but this could be mitigated in the longer term if the right policies are pursued. The report suggests that the terms of a Brexit could be defined by the referendum result itself - a close result could prompt a re-re-negotiation rather than an immediate reach for the Article 50 exit clause - you can read the outcome of our 'wargaming' of Brexit here (which the report also references).

The report notes that financial services and insurance are key London industries, comprising 19.8% of GVA, the single biggest sector measured in these terms – how will this be affected in Brexit? The report notes that London has many attributes other than acting as a springboard for access to EU markets but adds that this market access is valuable and could face some extra barriers following withdrawal.

In summary, the report concludes that reform is the best option, but there is little to fear from Brexit.That last point - in addition, to the various reform proposals set out - will no doubt serve to put additional pressure on David Cameron to be more ambitious in his push.

FTSE 100 businesses give EU reform and renegotiation a big boost

Whenever EU reform and renegotiation are being debated, one of the most powerful claims made by the status-quo side is that it would generate uncertainty which would be bad for business.

Well today's FT reports that according to a survey of one in three FTSE100 chairmen conducted by Korn Ferry, a leadership and talent consultancy, the overwhelming majority - 81% - said the want to see the UK renegotiate its relationship with the EU. In comparison, only 15% back staying in no matter what and 4% supporting an outright exit. There was naturally a range of views in terms of how far-reaching the renegotiation ought to be; some business leaders backed only "limited" changes, but a clear majority - 63% - backed "a return of social and economic power to nation states".

Although the business support for EU reform is not surprising - as our own pan-European business campaign for EU reform showed - the extent of support is considerable. This is particularly true since it comes from large corporations, which are often seen as gaining greater benefit from the current EU set up than small and medium sized enterprises, which bear a disproportionately larger burden from EU regulations. 

With such a strong mandate from business, it really is time for Cameron to ramp up his push for reform and flesh out exactly what kind of reform is desired, and how it can be achieved.

Juncker: The next Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner will be a Socialist

UPDATE (14:15) - One possibility we have not considered in our original blog post is that European Commission portfolios can change. They can be split, broadened, and so forth.

However, at this stage it is quite hard to know whether and how this will happen. Hence, our reasoning is based on the existing portfolios.

ORIGINAL BLOG POST (13:15)  

Pieces are falling into place with regard to the composition of the next European Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker, who is waiting to be confirmed as new Commission President by MEPs in a vote next Tuesday, has just said that the next EU Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs will be a Socialist.

Given the recent debate over EU fiscal rules and their 'flexibility', this sounds like a key pledge from Juncker to secure the backing of centre-left MEPs - since the Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner is responsible for enforcing such rules.

Now, two candidates for the post spring to mind instantly: former French Economy Minister Pierre Moscovici and Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, both from their respective countries' centre-left parties. The decision will likely also depend on what happens to the Presidency of the Eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers - with Spain making no secret of its interest in the job.

Scenario 1 - Dijsselbloem becomes the new EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner

This looks very likely to happen if Spain secures the Presidency of the Eurogroup. German Chancellor Angela Merkel would not be keen to see Mediterranean countries holding the posts of ECB President (Italy), Eurogroup President (Spain), and Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner (France) at the same time.

This would also mean that France will push to secure another key economic portfolio for Moscovici: Internal Market, Competition or Trade. This would not be ideal from David Cameron's point of view, although the UK would be likely to get whichever of the bigger briefs France did not get.

Scenario 2 - Moscovici becomes the new EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner

This would probably mean that Dijsselbloem will stay as Eurogroup President. At that point, Spain could be 'compensated' with an important portfolio in the new Commission. According to the Spanish media, Miguel Arias Cañete - a former centre-right Agriculture Minister who is widely tipped to be appointed Spain's new Commissioner - would be interested in the Trade brief.

Under this scenario, the UK would possibly have a greater chance of securing the Internal Market or the Competition portfolio (both very relevant, as we explained here) - not least because France would no longer be a contender. That said, as we pointed out above, Germany is probably wary of this scenario. And the UK may well be concerned about France controlling the brief which has the most impact on the issue of the balance of power between euro 'ins' and 'outs'.

One to watch for the UK: Finland's Jyrki Katainen  

One more thing to bear in mind. Until today, former Finnish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen was seen as a strong candidate to succeed his fellow national Olli Rehn as Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner. However, it now seems he will have to go for another portfolio. This could have important implications for the UK. Under a positive scenario, reform-minded Finland along with the UK could secure the Internal Market brief as well as the Competition portfolios. Indeed, France getting the Economic and Monetary Affairs portfolio could increase the chances of this happening. 

This is all quite speculative, and based on wishes Juncker expressed during his hearing with the centre-left S&D group in the European Parliament. National governments will play an important role when the time to assign portfolios in the new European Commission comes.

At the moment, there is still a decent chance of the UK securing a good porfolio despite the Juncker débâcle. One thing is clear, though: most other EU countries have already settled on high-profile candidates (note the numerous mentions of both former and acting finance ministers and prime ministers above), while the UK is yet to even decide on a clear shortlist of candidates. It is time to kick it into gear on this front.

Sarko drops a bomb: At least half of EU powers should return to member states

Three days ahead of the European Parliament elections in France, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has written a bombshell piece on Europe for French weekly Le Point and German daily Die Welt - calling for "at least half" of current EU powers to be handed back to member states.

Here are the key bits:

We need to look at today's European Union with lucidity. It can't work at 28 as it did at six, nine, or even twelve [member states]. I sincerely believe that there will be no alternative to a drastic reduction of the extent of [the EU's] competences. The situation today borders on the ridiculous and condemns us to powerlessness. 

[...]

Europe has ended up creating an administrative labyrinth, with the Commission and its departments, which indeed need to keep themselves busy. The result: hundreds of directives about the most various and often the most pointless issues. 

Today, we need to scrap at least half of [the EU's] current competences - which will have to be taken on by member states tomorrow. We need to regroup Europe's competences into less than ten basic priority policy areas: industry, agriculture, competition, trade negotiations, energy, research...

It would be unfair to use the Commission and its President as convenient scapegoats for our difficulties...That said, the [European] Commission should no longer have legislative competences because there’s a European Parliament, and it is only for it to legislate. 

On the eurozone vs EU-28 issue, Sarko writes:

Let's have the frankness to say that the myth of one Europe fell to pieces after the adoption of the euro by 18 of 28 [EU] countries. There's not one Europe anymore, but two. Furthermore, these two Europes today need to revise their strategies in different directions. More integration for the 18 [member states] that share their monetary sovereignty. 

[...]

At the same time, we need to stop believing the myth of equality of rights and responsibilities among all member states.

That means Sarkozy envisages a eurozone where bigger countries (especially France and Germany, ça va sans dire) have greater decision-making powers.

Finally, on immigration:

It is evident that we need to immediately suspend Schengen I [the EU's passport-free travel area] and replace it with a Schengen II, which member states could only join after they have previously adopted the same immigration policy.

On this blog, we've argued several times (see here and here) that the rise of Front National has pushed part of France's UMP, the main centre-right party, towards a more critical stance on the 'Europe' issue. It should be clear by now that David Cameron could find allies in France who could back his plan for an EU that does less, but does it better. 

However, the French presidential election is still three years away and, as we have said before, Cameron's biggest potential weakness is his 2017 deadline, which means some of his natural allies will not be in power to help him.