Labour finally wake up to the fact there is a European election next week

Do Ed Balls and Ed Miliband see eye-to-eye on the EU?

Anyone following Labour's election campaign up until now would be forgiven for thinking the party was fighting a general election as opposed to a European one - any references to Europe were hard to come by. However, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has emerged with a hard-hitting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard in which he argues that:

"Europe needs to work better to respond to public concerns, deliver better value for money for taxpayers and secure rising prosperity."

"First, we need the EU to be better focused on creating jobs and growth. An EU Commissioner focused on growth, and an independent audit of the impact of any new piece of EU legislation on growth, would be key to helping re-focusing the Union on this key task. And we need to drive forward the completion of the single market in digital, energy and services."

"Second, our reforms will help ensure that EU citizens seeking work here contribute to our economy and society. So we will extend the period of time that people from new member states have to wait before being able to come to the UK to look for work. We will work to stop the payment of benefits to those not resident in this country, consult on changing the rules on deporting someone who receives a custodial sentence shortly after arriving in the UK, and have called on the government to double the time that an EU migrant has to wait before being able to claim the basic Job Seekers Allowance."

 "And third, any agenda for change in Europe must also address people's concerns about how power is exercised at a European level. So we have called for national parliaments to have a greater role in EU decision making by being able to 'red-card' any new EU legislation before it comes into force; for serious reform of the EU Commission."

This commitment to reform is very welcome, even if this is merely a re-statement of existing Labour EU policy. It's worth noting that these reforms are not a million miles away from David Cameron's own priorities for EU reform - especially the further restrictions on EU migrants' access to benefits and the red card for national parliaments. Yet more evidence - as we've pointed out before - that tone and rhetoric aside, there is a surprising degree of consensus among the main parties when it comes to the substance of EU reform. 

As the New Statesman's George Eaton pointed out recently, there is a lot of frustration within Labour over how to deal with the EU question:

"Other shadow cabinet members complain of the party's failure to promote its commitment to reform the EU, which they regarded as a quid pro quo for Miliband's refusal to guarantee an in/out referendum under a Labour government."

It appears that Ed Balls is among the Labour heavy hitters keen to address this disparity.

The closest Cameron has got to setting out an EU "shopping list" yet few have noticed

What do David Cameron's seven EU 
reform commitments mean?

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron set out seven objectives - or eight if you read between the lines - for a Conservative EU reform agenda ahead of that potential 2017 EU referendum. Surprisingly, despite this being the most explicit that David Cameron has been in setting out a 'shopping list' (an unfortunate term), it has generated surprisingly little attention, in the UK and abroad.

To be fair, none of these objectives are completely new, one is not strictly to do with the EU, while in the case of some of the others it would be rather difficult to define success. Interestingly only the point about removing the commitment to “ever closer union” would definitely require treaty change.

In large parts, these are broad principles rather than specific policies - which is wholly appropriate given that it would be silly to set out a set of clear polices so far in advance (though some of these could easily get under way now). Here are the seven:

Commitment	What does it involve?	Treaty Change?
“Powers flowing away from Brussels, not always to it”	This is an overarching principle which would take a number of forms, including repatriating entire areas of EU powers, such as regional policy, to repealing specific regulations, to structural changes in the EU (incl. possible Treaty changes) that makes it easier to roll back the acquis such as a "green card" for national parliaments.	Depends. Reforms to regional policy and repealing individual rules, such as the Working Time Directive, would not require treaty change. Removing entire EU powers or structural changes might.
“National parliaments able to work together to block unwanted European legislation.”	At present a third or more of national parliaments can require the European Commission to reconsider proposals (a yellow card) - but it has only been used twice. There are various proposed ways of strengthening this mechanism to allow national parliaments collectively the power to strike down EU laws. This could give them a legal veto – the ‘red card’ or simply strengthen the existing mechanism.	If placed into EU law it would require treaty change. However, the Dutch Foreign Minister has suggested this could also be done through a "political agreement" between the Member States requiring the Commission to treat the yellow card as a de facto veto.
“Businesses liberated from red tape and benefiting from the strength of the EU’s own market – the biggest and wealthiest on the planet – to open up greater free trade with North America and Asia.”	De-regulation is very difficult to quantify. It could involve proposals to exempt small business from EU regulations. It could also involve imposing a repeal mechanism (a green card operated by national parliaments), sunset clauses, for EU laws as well as reviewing old EU regulations. This agenda also suggests further services liberalisation and the completion of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and further free trade agreements.	None of the "competitiveness agenda" requires Treaty Change. However, it is far from certain that TTIP will be agreed and then ratified while cutting EU red tape is always a challenge in the face of interest groups and the European Parliament - but far from impossible in the face of political will.
“Our police forces and justice systems able to protect British citizens, unencumbered by unnecessary interference from the European institutions, including the ECHR.”	This could involve withdrawal from the ECHR, successful reform of the ECHR or a UK Bill of Rights limiting its impact in the UK. The reference to “European Institutions” could imply removing the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) jurisdiction over EU crime and policing law.	Withdrawing from the ECHR would not require EU treaty change as it's not to do with the EU. Removing ECJ jurisdiction over EU crime and policing laws would.
“Free movement to take up work, not free benefits.”	This could involve a number of changes to EU rules around free movement including strengthening the link between economic contribution of EU migrants and access to benefits and ending "exportability" of child benefits.	Reforming the Free Movement Directive and the Social Security Regulation could be done without treaty change. Putting an outright cap on EU migration - which Cameron has NOT suggested - would require Treaty change.
"Support for the continued enlargement of the EU to new members but with new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the Continent.”	This would involve imposing tougher transitional controls on all future EU accessions, for example by extending the existing 7 year maximum transitional period or linking the right to free movement to population size and/or relative wealth levels.	EU enlargement requires a new Treaty with the accession state(s) over which all existing EU members would have a veto, so London could push this demand as the price for its agreement. However, enlargement does not alter the underlying EU Treaties themselves.
Dealing properly with the concept of “ever closer union”.	The EU treaties currently include a commitment to “ever closer union”. Removing these words would be largely symbolic but could have some political, and possible indirect judicial, impact.	Yes, given that the concept is itself enshrined in the treaty.

In addition, though he has not said so specifically, apart from a passing reference to need to achieve a union for both eurozone and non-eurozone countries, another priority for David Cameron will most definitely be to secure safeguards against eurozone caucasing.

A number of questions still remain of course, including the various reform ideas not touched on this article, including the EU budget, employment law or dealing with the ECJ (though they all could fit under the general principles he has laid out).

Lastly, David Cameron has said he will pursue this reform agenda followed by a referendum “if he is Prime Minister”. This is important as he appears to be setting down a red-line in any future negotiations with the Liberal Democrats to continue the Coalition.

The big question is if these reforms were to fail, would he campaign to leave or stay in regardless?

The Dutch EU reform agenda - a primer

In previous we've described the Dutch as 'thought leaders' on EU reform. The Dutch Government's 'subsidiarity review' and the Tweede Kamer's report on the role of national parliaments, with its proposals for 'red', 'green' and 'late' cards, all spring to mind.

Many of these ideas were discussed at a seminar in The Hague in January, organised by the Dutch Cingendael and Brussels CEPS think tanks. A short report on the outcome of the meeting is available online and lists over 30 potential reforms to improve democratic legitimacy and accountability. Some are more concrete than others but here are a few of them:

• Give one of the European Commissioners a subsidiarity portfolio.
• Negotiate a political agreement between the Council and the Commission (possibly involving the European Parliament as well), determining certain domains or certain issues where the European institutions will refrain from further initiatives. A closely related alternative is the idea of a moratorium, agreeing not to present new proposals in a specific area for a certain period.
• Establish a separate subsidiarity court to monitor EU legislation.
• Encourage a proactive approach by EU and national legislators to prevent unintended interpretation by the European Court of Justice.
• Ensure that the European Parliament, taking advantage of its role in selecting the next Commission President, does not dictate the agenda to the Commission.
• Introduce ex post subsidiarity control on existing EU legislation to demonstrate whether subsidiarity was respected and to justify the necessity of EU legislative acts on a case-by-case basis. Both member states and the EU institutions should be involved.
• Introduce an informal ‘red card’ for national parliaments, by proposing the political agreement that the Commission will use its discretion to withdraw legislation if one-third of national parliaments raise subsidiarity objections.
• Introduce a ‘late card’, giving national parliaments the opportunity to voice their concerns at a later stage of the ordinary legislative procedure.
• Introduce a ‘green card’ for national parliaments, which would give them the option to table a joint legislative proposal if a substantial number of member states’ parliaments support it.

There are plenty of good ideas here that the Dutch government in particular has been increasingly vocal in supporting. There are many other proposals that we would throw into the mix, from reforming the EU budget by repatriating regional spending to the wealthiest member states to introducing greater legal safeguards for non-eurozone countries.

As our pan-European reform conference showed, there is growing momentum for change in the EU that extends beyond the UK.

Gaining allies for #EUReform: Open Europe / Fresh Start Project's EU Reform Conference is drawing huge levels of interest

Advocates of 'Out' of the EU or the 'Status Quo', are fond of saying that EU reform is impossible - it suits their respective cases. They are wrong. Reform is possible, but will not happen on its own, reformers in the UK need to go out there and win allies and put forward solid thought-through proposals to make the EU more competitive and closer to voters.

This week Open Europe and the Fresh Start Project will attempt to do just that by hosting a ground-breaking conference for EU Reform in London.

It will be a landmark event - and the response to this conference has been absolutely amazing. A reminder to those who say there's "no appetite" for reform in Europe that they may be speaking too soon. There will be 300 delegates from over 30 countries debating a full spectrum of ideas on how to achieve major reform in Europe. Keynote speakers include eight ministers from across the continent, leading business people, MPs, MEPs, former heads of state and a European Commissioner.

Here are some highlights:

• A major contribution from a senior UK Minister.

• Agnieszka Pomaska, Chair of the EU Affairs Committee in the Polish Parliament, and Priti Patel MP debating EU free movement and rules on access to benefits.
• Rachida Dati MEP, Deputy President of the French UMP Party, asking if it’s time for a “realist revolution” in Europe.
• Leading German MP Klaus-Peter Willsch and former EU Commissioner and Dutch minister Frits Bolkestein discussing if, and how, powers can flow back from the EU to its member states.
• UK Europe Minister David Lidington and Irish Europe Minister Paschal Donohoe discussing the role of national parliaments with break-out sessions looking at whether national parliaments should be given veto rights over EU law.
• Maria Damanaki, European Commissioner for Fisheries, explaining why EU reform is possible using the case of the EU’s fisheries policy.
• Bruno Maçães, Portuguese Secretary of State for European Affairs, discussing how services liberalisation can be achieved in Europe.
• Serial entrepreneur Luke Johnson and Dr Daniel Mitrenga of the German Association of Family Enterprises identifying ways to cut EU regulation.
• UK Foreign Secretary William Hague addressing the “Reformers’ Reception”.
• Bulgarian Foreign Minister Kristian Vigenin, Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, and former Slovakian Prime Minister Iveta Radicova, drawing lessons on reform from Eastern and Central Europe.
• Peter Norman, the Swedish Minister for Financial Markets, looking at how the single market can work for economic recovery.
• Young reformers from across Europe setting out their ideas for change in the concluding “Future of Europe” panel.

What do we hope to achieve?One conference will not achieve #EUReform on its own, but ahead of a crucial year in Europe - with the European elections and the selection of a new European Commission - it'll be a hugely important opportunity to really delve into the kind of policies that will achieve sweeping change in Europe. It'ls also be a key testing ground for what kind of reforms David Cameron might achieve ahead of a potential 2017 EU referendum.

We have provided a platform, now lets see what the delegates make of it...


Commission's dismissal of national parliaments' concerns over EPPO shows why a red card is needed

While all eyes are on EU free movement and EU migrant's rights to welfare access, the Commission has put out its response to the 'yellow card' shown by national parliaments with respect to its proposal for a European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) - a body which would "investigate and prosecute EU-fraud and other crimes affecting the Union's financial interests".

To re-cap, national parliaments in eleven member states - the UK, Czech Republic, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Sweden, Romania and Slovenia - complained that the plans breached the subsidiarity principle - i.e. the principle that the EU should not act where member states are just as able to act on their own. This is only the second occasion on which the yellow card has been deployed.

The weakness in the current system is that a yellow card only compels the Commission to consider whether to "maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal", meaning that if the Commission is determined to push ahead regardless, it can do so. This is is exactly what has happened in this case, with the Commission concluding that the "proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity... and that a withdrawal or an amendment of that proposal is not required."

The actual document is very detailed, and while its good that the Commission has properly engaged with concerns raised by national parliaments, it is clear that the Commission's mind is already made up as per the following section:

"the drafters of the Treaty have expressly provided for the possibility of establishing the European Public Prosecutor's Office in Article 86 TFEU... This provision gives a strong indication that the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office cannot be considered per se and in the abstract to be in breach of the principle of subsidiarity."

Very tellingly, the Commission has also appointed itself as the arbiter of what constitutes an 'acceptable' complaint on subsidiarity grounds, arguing that:

"In analysing the reasoned opinions, the Commission has distinguished between arguments relating to the principle of subsidiarity, or that could be interpreted as subsidiarity concerns, and other arguments relating to the principle of proportionality, to policy choices unrelated to subsidiarity, or to other policy or legal issues."

Although the Treaty states the decision has to be reached by unanimity (so no danger of the UK being vetoed), this episode highlights the need to turn the 'yellow card' into an outright 'red card' - i.e. a definite veto. This could apply to existing as well as proposed EU legislation.

In addition, national parliaments should be given more than the existing 8 week period to respond. The scope for national parliaments to object to EU proposals should also be widened from the narrowly defined principle of subsidiarity to prevent the Commission from being able to undermine their validity. As we've argued, in order for national parliaments to have a real impact in the EU they need real powers - otherwise this widely shared objective will not come to much.

The Dutch are emerging as Europe's thought leaders on reform

The Dutch are quickly becoming Europe's thought leaders on EU reform. The Dutch government's "subsidiarity review" contained numerous interesting ideas for EU reform, the Dutch lower house, Tweede Kamer recently published a paper outlining key proposals for how to strengthen the role of national parliaments. And today, the Dutch foreign minister, Frans Timmermans, used a piece in the FT to set out some new ideas for reform.

Timmermans wraps his ideas in quite friendly language but there are some pretty sharp lines in there.

He says that "During the crisis the European Commission...was relegated to the sidelines and never regained the initiative", adding

"That has not stopped its machine from producing directives and regulations, creating a regulatory burden that bears down on businesses and people." 

He notes the European Parliament

"has been fully empowered by the Treaty of Lisbon. It has an important role to play, but at every turn it demands more resources for more Europe while it attracts ever lower electoral turnouts."

His key ideas include:

• A European Governance Manifesto for the next five years with the member states, laying down what the EU should and should not do. "This will mean more Europe in some areas, and less in others."
• "Create a smaller, reformed commission with a president and vice-presidents heading a limited number of policy clusters. The vice-presidents would have the sole authority to initiate legislation."
• Encouraging "national parliaments to bring Europe back home where it belongs." He throws his weight behind a "red card" for national parliaments - if one-third of them object, a Commission proposal is history. As you know, we love this idea. 

However, he says he doesn't want treaty changes and, interestingly, claims the ideas he put forth can be achieved without such changes. We assume that, for the red card, this would effectively mean a political agreement to the effect that the current yellow card means a red card in practice.

Timmermans concludes:

"In this we do not stand alone. Other partners have put forward proposals that share a similar thrust: a more focused and balanced EU with less burdensome regulation. Let us seize this momentum and start with an in-depth debate on change and reform. For this is our chance to shape “our” Europe together."

National democracy pushing back: European Commission shown its second ever 'yellow card'

The European Commission has just been shown its second ever 'yellow card'. Remember, this is the provision introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, stating that if one third or more national parliaments object to an EU proposal on subsidiarity grounds (within an eight week window), then the Commission has to reconsider the proposal. In theory, the Commission can choose to ignore parliaments (one of our long-standing criticisms of the mechanisms). However, in fairness, the last time the yellow card was issued - in the case of the so-called 'Monti II' Regulation on the right to strike - the Commission did scrap the thing.

National parliaments from eleven EU member states - the UK, Czech Republic, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Sweden, Romania and Slovenia - have now complained that plans for a European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO) breach the subsidiarity principle.

According to the Lisbon Treaty, the establishment of the EPPO requires unanimity, and the UK would have sought to opt out, but that also means that other EU countries could have pressed ahead with this without Britain.

So the move is still significant for a few reasons:

• It is another example of how national parliaments are increasingly pushing back against EU centralisation, and how little appetite there is for 'ever closer union' (the Commission's proposal was limited, with the prosecutor only being responsible for investigating fraud involving EU funds).

• It shows national parliaments can agree. In total, 15 chambers from eleven EU member states objected to the idea. Bear in mind that an objection raised by a chamber from a country whose parliament is unicameral (e.g. Sweden or Cyprus) counts as two votes. Therefore, to some extent, it counters the argument that a new 'red card' system allowing a group of national parliaments to block unwanted EU proposals - which we have supported for a while - would not work because national parliaments would not get their act together. 

The ball is now in the European Commission's court. It will take quite a bit of nerve to ignore 15 more or less democratically elected chambers (*ehum*) in Europe....

Should MPs seek to engage with the EU institutions directly?

Who should represent the UK in the EU, MPs or the Government?

The Hansard Society's recent collection of essays included many good proposals on how to improve Westminster's scrutiny of EU business. We have already commented on who did not have anything to say on improving it  - here are some of the ideas of those who did:

Firstly, Gisela Stuart MP made a fundamental observation as to what scrutiny should seek to achieve. "If it’s about shaping decisions, then Parliament enters the stage far too late to make a difference" but "it’s not the role of national parliaments to second-guess their governments at EU level. I’d argue that Parliament’s role is to scrutinise its own government’s actions at EU level." In essence - who scrutinises the scrutinisers. While acknowledging that the UK Parliament can not change measures already agreed at an EU level she went on to suggest some innovations including a Europe Minister in the Cabinet, with his/her own question time to improve political accountability.

By contrast the Europe Minister David Lidington MP, although probably not opposed to being in the Cabinet, sees the role of MPs differently believing in "upstreaming the process, so that Parliament can influence Brussels at the very beginning of the decision-making process." This view of Parliament as an 'influencer' was shared by the chair of the EU Committee in the House of Lords Lord Boswell who explained that his "committee engages actively with bodies including the Commission, the European Parliament, national parliaments of other EU member states and the devolved assemblies of the United Kingdom" without addressing the concerns raised by Stuart.

This all raises interesting questions, picked up on by Open Europe's Christopher Howarth who argued "in cases where say a Lords’ committee gives its opinion to the Commission it is unclear whose opinion is being voiced – it is not Parliament’s as a whole, just a sub-section of parliamentary opinion". In essence if MPs seek to influence the EU directly, on whose behalf do they speak? How do they decide what to influence and to whom should they be accountable? Should the unelected Lords Committee be seeking to influence the EU perhaps to do things the UK Government does not approve of?
 
In other submissions, Chris Heaton-Harris MP and Robert Broadhurst's looked at the proposal for an EU red card to give national parliaments a veto over EU measures concluding that in practice it "would still leave Parliament unable to control the flow of EU legislation". Instead they proposed a new Act of Parliament that would require Ministers to receive a mandate before negotiating in the EU, giving Parliament the final say and a new UK EU relationship. They added a thoughtful look at how the current scrutiny committee mechanisms could be sharpened up.

Bill Cash MP, the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee explained how Parliament's scrutiny process grew up and  "commented on ideas for incremental reform" while believing that "it is important to consider more radical options".

Dr Ariella Huff and Dr Julie Smith looked at other systems around Europe including the Dutch Parliament's devolved scrutiny system and the Danish mandating system before suggesting that Ministers attend the UK's scrutiny committee before and after Council meetings.

Lastly Open Europe's Christopher Howarth suggested a number of other innovations including giving MPs the power to summon MEPs to Westminster and conduct confirmation hearings of the UK's EU officials before concluding “Scrutiny without power is not scrutiny, it is ritual... The only real solution is to return powers to Westminster”.

Is the scrutiny of EU legislation only the preserve of the EU-critical?

Who cares about EU scrutiny?

The Hansard Society has today published a collection of essays on improving the current scrutiny of EU legislation in the UK Parliament - well worth a read. Open Europe's Christopher Howarth contributed an essay arguing for greater powers for national parliaments arguing "Scrutiny without power is not scrutiny, it is ritual" - along with a series of detailed suggestions (more on those later). Other contributors include Bill Cash MP, Chris Heaton Harris MP, Robert Broadhurst, Gisela Stuart MP and Lord Boswell and the foreword is written by none other than the Europe Minister David Lidington MP.

However, reading those names you might be struck by the absence of those on the more EU integrationist side of the UK EU debate. Surely those on all sides of the political spectrum have an interest in the EU's democratic accountability? Well here is what the Hansard Society's Ruth Fox had to say:

“A majority of the authors – though not all – might be said to occupy the more eurosceptic end of the political spectrum. We invited a wide range of politicians across all the major parties to our seminar in September 2012 but those who accepted came, in the main, from the eurosceptic perspective. Similarly, we invited a number of pro-Europeans to contribute to this pamphlet but, disappointingly, there were few expressions of interest. This underlines the concern that those engaging with the detail of European issues are drawn from too narrow a tranche of parliamentary representatives.”

So there you have it. Why are those who argue for the UK's place in Europe to remain unchanged and/or more integration so reluctant to say anything about increasing the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the goings on of the EU - what do they think they have to lose?

Lib Dems set to officially endorse in/out referendum and Treaty change to secure single market safeguards

The Lib Dem Autumn Conference Agenda is unlikely to set many pulses racing but motion F35 caught our attention, as it concerns the party's EU policy. Assuming the motion put forward by the party's federal policy committee is approved by party delegates, as seems likely, it will become official party policy and will probably be included in the party's 2015 manifesto. This could prove significant in the event of another hung parliament and subsequent coalition talks with either the Tories or Labour.

The motion contains a number of detailed and specific points covering everything from the single market to the CAP and the EU budget, but two points are particularly significant:

"Guaranteeing full voice in the regulation and application of the four freedoms – of goods, capital, labour and services – of the single market for both euro and non-euro states in the next EU treaty." 

"Requiring that when the EU Act triggers a referendum for the first time, there should be an ‘In or Out’ referendum in which citizens across the UK can have their say on the new Treaty settlement and our relationship with the EU as a whole."

So we have a commitment to push for single market safeguards in any future Treaty negotiations, which is in itself a recognition that the EU is developing in such a way that necessitates different degrees of integration, and that the UK has to assert its interests in order to prevent the eurozone from writing the rules for the whole bloc (the double majority agreement on banking supervision could serve as a model here). For a party that until relatively recently supported the UK joining the euro this is a significant shift.

The referendum commitment is less of a surprise as Clegg and others have been hinting that an in/out referendum would be a matter of when, not if. The big difference between the two coalition parties when it comes to the referendum is therefore one of timing, with the Lib Dems rejecting the Tories' promise of a referendum by 2017 as arbitrary. However, the chance of there being an EU Treaty change transferring more powers from the UK during the lifetime of the next Parliament is very slim. There might be Treaty change but likely for Eurozone-specific measures (which still can have an impact on the UK by changing political dynamics in Europe but which would not trigger the EU Act).

On the face of it though, this would leave Labour as the only major party not explicitly committed to an in/out referendum at some point (although some would argue that the Lib Dems have promised a referendum before and not delivered).

Finally, it is also welcome to see the party explicitly call for "measures to enable national parliaments to contribute more directly to the development of EU policy and legislation", even if the policy document stops short of the 'red card' option outlined by Open Europe and endorsed recently by William Hague.

Great speeches, Prime Minister, but now make EU reform happen

David Cameron delivered a new speech on Europe today (it was not exclusively Europe but much of the pre-speech briefing focussed on this aspect). It was not quite as startling as the last one. The policy of reform, renegotiation and a referendum remains the same – and this clearly is an attempt to show that he can lead on Europe, rather than being pushed around by his backbenchers. However, it does raise important and interesting questions.

This is the part relevant to the UK's EU membership:

Membership of these organisations is not national vanity - it is in our national interest. The fact is that it is in international institutions that many of the rules of the game are set on trade, tax and regulation. When a country like ours is affected profoundly by those rules, I want us to have a say on them. That doesn't mean supinely going with the flow of multilateral opinion - the lowest common denominator approach to democracy, as we've seen in the past.

...our policy on the EU is clear. In the modern world, you need to work every advantage you’ve got. A single market of 500 million people on our doorstep, that worked properly, that was competitive, that was unbureaucratic and dynamic – that would be a huge advantage in this world. The EU is a way off that goal yet. But I say – let’s try and realise that vision for all our sakes.

That is why we are seeking to shape a new settlement in Europe; to get a better deal for Britain in it and to equip Europe as a whole to compete in the world. And when we have negotiated that new settlement, as I said in my Bloomberg speech, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice: To stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether. It will be an in-out referendum.

Firstly, note the subtle change in tense from the beginning: "it is in our national interest" to be in the EU to saying a "single market... that worked properly... would be a huge advantage in this world". Which is right.

We have argued that there are compelling reasons for the UK to seek to remain within a reformed EU, such as full access to the Single Market and voting rights on the terms of trade within the Single Market. However, unless the drift towards greater political and economic integration in the eurozone can be accompanied by a looser and more flexible relationship for countries such as the UK – whilst the EU as a whole needs to become more competitive and outward-looking – the British electorate will increasingly look to the exit.

Now that Cameron has promised that the electorate that it will decide, as we’ve argued before, he really does need to crack on with the reform work. We know that Downing Street has invested a lot of time touring Europe to sell Cameron’s vision of reform – this should be acknowledged. Again, this is right thinking. However, it still remains unclear to most national capitals what, exactly, Cameron wants in Europe. William Hague’s Königswinter speech, in which he called for a "red” card for national parliaments, was a major step in the right direction, and one which is drawing sympathy. This needs now needs to be pushed around national capitals. Likewise, the under-sold reforms to the EU’s fisheries policy are good news, as was the EU budget cut.

However, there are many more things the UK government could do – even within the Coalition agreement. For all Cameron’s talk of a reformed and reinvigorated single market, we still haven’t seen the political investment needed to really press ahead with more liberalisation in services. We have outlined a strategy for how to break the deadlock in this area.

Polls show that Cameron’s EU policy enjoys public support but is suffering from a 'credibility deficit'. There’s only one way to close that gap: get on with it.

So by all means give speeches, but now is the time for action.

Hague says UK wants national parliaments to have power to show 'red card' to EU proposals

William Hague backs giving national parliaments
a new 'red card' to replace the current yellow card

William Hague will today further develop plans for a new 'red card' system for national parliaments to block unwelcome laws from Brussels, a move first proposed by Europe Minister David Lidington a couple of weeks ago. In a speech in Germany, Hague will argue that only by giving greater powers to national MPs, rather than MEPs in the European Parliament, will Europe be able to restore the democratic deficit.

The proposed 'red card' would beef up the little-known 'yellow card' system already in place, which is pretty weak in practice since it only forces the Commission to ‘reconsider’ a proposal.

We have long championed this approach and the idea of a ‘red card’ in particular, including in our paper making the case for ‘European localism’, published in 2011. Today, our Director Mats Persson backed the move and is quoted by PA as saying,

"Allowing national parliaments to block unwanted EU laws would go a long way to bring back democratic accountability over EU decisions.”

"However, whilst it's encouraging that the UK government is looking at this, it must press ahead with this reform now to avoid the impression that it has no immediate strategy in Europe - a charge that's becoming more frequent. There's support for this reform in other parts of the EU."

This is the first major proposal for EU reform the Government has made since Cameron's speech and it is a very welcome one. The fact Hague will make his speech in Germany is no accident and there is certainly a great deal of support for this idea amongst other member states who feel that for too long the EU institutions have run roughshod over national politics - yesterday's intervention from the Commission on migrant benefits (another area where the UK's concerns are shared with other powerful EU countries) is a case in point.

Its also worth noting that this option would enjoy substantial support among the UK public with 42% of respondents in the recent ComRes poll for Open Europe listing "giving the UK parliament more powers to block unwanted EU laws" as one of their top four priorities for renegotiation. Of all the available options, this was the second most popular after immigration.

We need to see much more of the same and, all importantly, the political will to make it a reality.

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!