Not a two speed Europe. A flexible Europe

David Cameron was proved right last week in his stance that he would not decide a Conservative response to Lisbon until it had cleared all its hurdles. The Irish voted no by a large margin. Since the treaty must be ratified by all 27 member states, it is now dead. Brown and Miliband are proceeding to ratify something that no longer exists. The Treaty has ceased to be. It is an ex-treaty. Logic, as we know, is not Labour’s strong suit.

Yet none of us can think the rejection of Lisbon solves the fundamental problem. There are two visions of what the EU should be, and they are not reconcilable. If our party doesn’t admit this basic truth, David Cameron and his eventual successors will be bogged down in the European question for decades to come.

And we simply can’t waste time navel gazing over Europe. We’ve got a country to fix. We should give up entirely trying to convert France, Germany and Luxembourg to our vision of the EU, and they should give up wrestling with us over ours. What is needed is a permanent solution that embraces both visions – a flexible Europe. It is the only answer when the unstoppable force of ever-closer union meets the immovable object of pragmatic nation states.

France will be happy. Germany will be happy. Britain will be happy. Shirley Williams won’t be happy, but I think that a price worth paying.

My friend Dan Hannan MEP, whom I bombarded with anxious texts during the vote last week (thanks for keeping me sane Dan), hates the term “two speed Europe” and I agree with him. It’s wrong, because it implies that countries are heading towards the same destination – the United States of Europe – at different speeds. Flexible Europe is much better; it implies that other countries may merge if they wish but those nations who wish to keep their identity will instead share intelligence, resources, climate change technology and free trade. It spares us from the tiresome old mantras of “red lines” “opt-outs” “concessions” and other political posturing wrapped in xenophobic language. Instead, it offers a vision of a friendly, efficient co-operation and alliance that suits every country involved and that builds Europe as a whole into a strong global force.

The papers suggest Mr. Miliband, a most ardent Europhile, is prepared to drop Lisbon rather than go for the flexible solution the federalist countries want and have suggested. This is because the Labour government, unlike the British people, believe in a federal Europe and are terrified the Conservatives will agree with France and Germany that a flexible arrangement is the answer. For once, let us cheer on M. Junker and all those true believers in the United States of Europe. The Celtic tiger may wish  to be involved with her European partners in a new way. I firmly believe most Britons would. We should work with the ardent EU-philes to find the final answer that would work best for Britain and for them.