Handelsblatt: Britain a key driver of EU Reform

Britain: The critical voice of reason?

We've been monitoring how the British Europe debate is being received across the continent throughout the Juncker episode (here and here), and already noted how large parts of the German commentariat have come out fighting for the UK to remain in the EU, especially because it is in Germany's long-term strategic interest.

Today's Handelsblatt features a joint op-ed looking at the pros and cons of British membership of the EU, with the paper's political editor Jan Mallien writing:

"The British question [EU] bureaucracy, fight against agricultural subsidies, and ensure that any transfer of power to Brussels is discussed critically. Thus, they provide important impulses -- and make themselves unpopular. In a shared house, they would be in charge of the cleaning-rota. Of course, one can kick-out the person who is charged with the cleaning rota from a shared household. But it would be an illusion to think that the others would never have to clean again."

He continues:

"With their critical attitude, the British are a key driver of reform. Some German newspapers insinuate that Cameron is on an anti-European course. Those who say something like that are simplifying matters: The Brits are in favor of another [vision of the] EU. In many ways, they are fighting the correct battles."

Mallien concludes:

 "Sure, there are some issues where agreement would be easier without [the Brits.] The Financial Transaction Tax, for example. However, these are mainly symbolic issues. The EU is not much better-off with a Financial Transaction Tax. But without the British an important drive for reform will be missing. A Brexit would therefore make the EU poorer -- and not just economically."

On the other side of the fence, Handelsblatt columnist Désirée Linde says:

"Why all the whining about the nightmare scenario of a British EU-exit? If the British want to get out of the EU, continental Europe should let them go. Because, contrary to suggestions of doomsayers and EU-haters, it would not spell the beginning of the end for the EU. Yes, it would be a shock, but one that provides an opportunity for the EU. The cost of a Brexit for the EU is undisputed. Great Britain is one of the EU's biggest net contributors paying over €7bn per year."

She continues that while a Brexit would be “uncomfortable for the EU,” it would be “fatal” for the UK, and concludes:

"From the outset, the British lacked commitment to integration... Brexit would not build a way back to the European Community for the British. So it is up for all of Europe's friends in the UK to perceive this as a cleansing thunderstorm and develop a whole new enthusiasm for Europe. The fact that Europe is not just a customs union, but also a political project is something that the British have not yet understood...It is time that the UK learns. And if it must be, the hard way."

Linde buys into the whole German "pro-integration" rhetoric. However, as we have noted repeatedly, one of the greatest ironies of the German-Europe debate is how to square the need for more integration, especially in the eurozone, with Germany's national interests. This is lost on Linde. 

As a post-script, it's not only the Germans who are coming out in favour of Britain. The French  commentariat has been speaking out too, fearful of the imbalance a Bexit would cause in the European club. In today's Le Figaro, French columnist Renaud Girard describes the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as new European Commission President as “an unnecessary affront” to the UK, and argues:

 “It is irresponsible to push London on the slippery slope of EU exit… As far as France is concerned, it has no interest in finding itself head-to-head with Germany.” 

The Juncker-episode has shown that the moment of truth on the UK's future in Europe is drawing closer - and it also appears to be focusing minds across the Channel that an EU without Britain may not be in anyone's interest.

Rien à voir ici? Hollande says treaty change is "not the priority" for France, but...

David Cameron and François Hollande have just held their joint press conference following the Anglo-French defence summit in Oxfordshire. Predictably, though, most of the questions focused instead on Cameron's EU renegotiation strategy and the prospects of it being achieved by changes to the EU treaties.

Here's what stood out for us:

• Significantly, Cameron explicitly said that renegotiation of the UK's EU membership "will involve elements of treaty change". This is quite a rare admission, and is the most explicit he's been so far on the need to change the EU treaties. As The Times's Sam Coates flagged up, the Prime Minister has been categorical about EU treaty change once before, speaking of "the treaty change that I’ll be putting in place before the referendum", on the Andrew Marr Show earlier this year - although the question was specifically on EU migrants' access to benefits. 

• The Prime Minister also reiterated that "the eurozone needs change...It needs greater co-ordination, it needs those elements that make a single currency succeed. That's why in recent years we've already seen treaty changes."

• Hollande said that "France wants more coordination and integration in the eurozone", but treaty change "is not the priority" for the time being. Though this is what the headlines are likely to focus on, this is nothing new, nor surprising. It's been the French position for ages. However, Hollande didn't rule treaty change out. He said it wasn't "urgent" or "the priority". As we have argued from the beginning (see here, for instance), the timetable remains a weakness in Cameron's plan - not least because discussions on changing the EU treaties can drag on for years and the eurozone remains on an uncertain development path.

• The French President also stressed that major treaty changes (he mentioned the Maastricht Treaty as an example) would have to be put to a referendum in France - while for smaller ones parliamentary approval would be enough.

A couple of points are worth making. It is no secret that one of the reasons France is wary of changing the EU treaties is that referenda are not exactly easy to win (think of the one on the EU Constitution in 2005, but also the one on the Maastricht Treaty, both of which split the country and the political establishment).

This is true assuming that the new Treaty gives the EU more powers. But this is not what Cameron is aiming for. So it is not entirely clear that any UK-led changes would necessarily have to be put to a vote in France.

That said, though, the common wisdom on this point is that an EU treaty change would be part of a 'grand bargain' to strengthen economic coordination in the eurozone - meaning that the UK's new relationship with the EU would be negotiated alongside greater central controls in the euro area. This type of treaty change could clearly trigger a referendum in France (and elsewhere).

The question remains open. With Germany likely to keep pushing for an EU treaty change to complete the overhaul of the eurozone structures, we still think Hollande may have to face the issue sooner rather than later - with the question being what deal Berlin can broker.

And yet again, that brings us back to Angela Merkel.

Will Anglo-French defence co-operation be a casualty of the UK's decision on Syria?

Syria will not see a rerun of the Anglo-French Cooperation we saw in Libya

Commenting on Conservative Home's special jury on the events in Syria Open Europe's Christopher Howarth argues that Anglo-French co-operation on defence and foreign policy has taken a knock from the UK's decision to pull out of military action in Syria:

David Cameron’s Syrian fiasco will reverberate through many aspects of politics. But how will it affect the UK’s international standing?

The US may now look at the UK in a different light but, ironically, within the EU the UK’s reputation may improve. Europe tends to dislike what it perceives as rushed and unilateral military action (a UK/US-led operation is seen as unilateral). Parliamentary opposition to military action is something most EU states can easily understand and the UK’s break with the US may seem refreshing.

However, there is an important exception - the French Government. France and the UK are the only two EU states with the capability and (until now) the will to act. Recognising this, the FCO have been at pains to improve Anglo-French defence and foreign relations - UK help for France in Mali being a recent example. The FCO realise that if France and the UK cooperate they can be a powerful force within the EU and indeed the world. The most serious ramification of Syria is that these plans for Anglo-French defence cooperation may have taken a knock.

We have been here before. The last time UK foreign policy went spectacularly awry was in Suez. Then as now the UK bailed on France. We remember Suez as a lesson in the need to work with the US, for the French it was a lesson in the folly of trusting Anglo-Saxons. Things are nowhere near as bad this time but the relationship needs to be repaired.

Of course Syria is not Suez and the lessons will be different. Eden was tripped up by opposition from the US and Tory liberal internationalists, appalled by the naked pursuit of British interests. Cameron’s Tory opposition came from the descendants of the traditional wing who backed Eden, but who fail this time to see a British interest. After Suez, liberal policy makers agreed that the UK’s role in the world had shrunk and that it was a mistake to act without the US.

This time it is important to ensure that we do not accept any further shrinkage and that future US action is not spurned by the UK and an already sceptical EU. Like Anthony Eden, David Cameron has come unstuck on an area of policy that seemed to be his primary interest. Unlike Eden, Cameron has the opportunity to move on and repair the damage.