The coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is only a week old and yet already pessimists are saying it won’t last long – frankly I hope they're wrong. One of the reasons most often quoted for the coalition’s fragility is Europe, or more specifically the divergence of opinion between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on Britain’s role in, and relationship with, the European Union.
Most of those who believe the coalition will founder on this issue are hardline eurosceptics. One such doomsayer is Lord Tebbit, who disgracefully called on voters in last year’s European election to vote for UKIP. This belief that Europe will be the undoing of a very carefully constructed coalition is perhaps a reflection of the overriding importance – one might almost call it an obsession – that some in our party attach to our membership of the EU. They are so committed either to Britain adopting a more hostile approach to the EU or seeking to secede altogether that it appears they see the collapse of a Conservative-led government as a worthwhile price to pay to achieve their goals. For them, nothing else matters. I sometimes wonder if we have learned the lessons of the last period of Tory government.
For voters, however – and I must have canvassed hundreds, if not thousands, of households across the entire London region in two election campaigns in the past year – Europe barely registers on their political radar. UKIP once again came nowhere near winning a seat, though it may have denied us a few extra ones. UKIP polled 3.1% of the popular vote nationally, which admittedly puts them in fourth place ahead of the Greens but a long way behind the pro-European Liberal Democrats. The Green Party, however, did show that well-disciplined smaller parties are occasionally capable of making a breakthrough under first-past-the-post.
None of the main parties contesting the election advocated a secessionist or obstructionist approach to Europe. The coalition government, therefore, ought to reflect first and foremost the fact that Britain should remain a fully engaged member of the European Union.
In fact, the coalition has gone much further than that, boldly crafting a series of key principles with regard to the EU that are notable for their pragmatism, moderation and pursuit of hard-headed national interest. These are based on a 'eurorealistic' approach characterised by constructive though not uncritical engagement, which chimes with the mission statement of our new ECR Group in the European Parliament – the Prague Declaration.
The government says it’s committed to Britain being a ‘positive participant’ in the EU, playing a ‘strong and positive role’. This echoes William Hague’s assurance earlier this year that Britain under a Tory government would be ‘active and activist’ in the EU. Furthermore, David Cameron’s so-called ‘3G agenda’ for the EU of tackling global poverty, boosting global competitiveness and addressing global warming is rightly emphatically endorsed.
The rest of the coalition’s statement on Europe reflects an eminently sensible Conservative approach to the EU. There is a commitment that no further transfer of sovereignty to the EU will take place over the life of the parliament. A ‘referendum lock’ will be in place so that this government cannot deny the people a say in a plebiscite on any future treaty. Use of the so-called ‘passerelle clause’ will require primary legislation, potentially giving MPs at Westminster a much greater role in shaping Britain’s relationship with the EU over the life of the parliament. A sovereignty bill, the case for which will be examined by the government, will further entrench Westminster’s ultimate primacy over our lawmaking.
There are mentions of some other key issues that the Conservative delegation of MEPs has been deeply involved within past years. The government has reaffirmed its commitment to the working time directive opt-out – perhaps not much new here, because the Labour government also championed the opt-out, but Labour MEPs voted time and again to scrap it. At least we know the Liberal Democrats share our views on our opt-out, which will be more important than ever in the coming ‘age of austerity’.
One related issue which will have to be addressed is how and to what extent we UK MEPs seek to formally coordinate the Conservative and LibDem positions, particularly over EU legislation, to avoid inconsistencies with London and cause any embarrassment to the coalition government. In Westminster there is a fusing of the whips' offices, and although there are no similar plans over here I understand arrangements are being considered to streamline areas where there is coalition agreement on policy. I have already discussed this with my CDU colleagues (used to coalitions in Berlin!) who undertake such exercises with their FDP colleagues on a regular basis so there is considerable experience in the European Parliament as to how this should operate without parties in any way compromising their separate identities.
The coalition has ruled out joining or preparing to join the euro, which makes obvious economic sense and is totally consistent with our approach for the past 20 years. Thankfully the Liberal Democrats seem to have come around to this approach. It's an approach I advocated in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal ten years ago in which I predicted the dangers of an asymmetric shock like the one we are experiencing in Greece and the dangers of a lack of common fiscal governance.
The EU budget gets a mention, which is important because it binds both elements of the government to work collectively towards reform and presumably will be incumbent upon both Conservative and Liberal Democrat delegations in the European Parliament. We sit in different groups in Brussels but it is surely no bad thing to seek to construct a multipartisan approach to deep-seated budgetary reform.
The coalition agreement to examine criminal justice proposals on a case-by-case basis and to decline participation in the establishment of a European public prosecutor is also reflective of sound Conservative principles – we should assess Commission proposals on their merits but we should also draw clear boundaries over which we will not stray.
The coalition agreement makes reference to the crazy system whereby the European Parliament has three seats. There is widespread public dismay across Europe at such a wasteful and polluting (and therefore self-contradictory) policy. The monthly trip to Strasbourg, from where I write this, makes no sense in an EU of 27 member states. I hope the government will have the courage to bring up this matter in the Council, because the Strasbourg jaunts bring huge discredit on the EU.
The coalition’s statement on Europe, therefore, reads a lot like Conservative policy over the past 20 years. There is much even for eurosceptics to cheer, and much to work towards, which is why I am disappointed that anti-EU elements in the party appear to be spoiling for a fight. In fact, this statement of aims and objectives reads a lot like the manifesto on which I first stood for election as a Conservative MEP, in 1999. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that the party leader then was William Hague, our new Foreign Secretary and the Tory chief negotiator the coalition negotiations. The fact that we managed to craft the coalition’s EU policy in our image is a major plus for all of us who want to see Britain leading efforts to reform the EU.
The man chosen to marshal the government’s policy on Europe has exactly the right pedigree to do just that. David Lidington is consensual and pragmatic, and he brings a wealth of knowledge to this role as an MP for almost 20 years and previously as a special advisor at the Foreign Office. David is a listener and a loyalist. His jocularity hides a steely determination and a sparkling intellect. I hope we can all get behind David as he takes on this challenging and exciting role as the new Europe Minister. Certainly it would be most unfortunate if his job was to be made any more difficult by Conservatives minded to wreck the coalition on the issue of Europe.
Finally, a word about the prospect of the Lisbon treaty having to be re-ratified by parliament. As I understand it, the forthcoming intergovernmental conference relates solely to the method in which member states will fill 18 vacant seats in the European Parliament following the entry into force of Lisbon. It is therefore necessary only to ratify the new provisions relating to these seats. The idea that all the member states will have to ratify once more the entire treaty appears fanciful to me. I think people are getting excited about nothing because there is clearly no new transfer of powers as expressed in the coalition document.
What the government decides to do on this matter is a question for the cabinet but I can’t imagine the coalition would survive long if Cameron insisted on a referendum to re-ratify Lisbon. Commentators of every shade of opinion have stated that such a referendum would effectively have to be an in-or-out referendum, given that all EU member states have ratified the treaty and its provisions are now being implemented.
Interestingly, the Liberal Democrats – uniquely among the three main parties – propose an in-or-out referendum, whereas David Cameron has never embraced such an idea. Nick Clegg might well insist on such a referendum if Cameron was to demand re-ratification of Lisbon through a plebiscite. Such a scenario, therefore, would be deeply destabilizing to the coalition, and I suggest that’s the reason why Prime Minister Cameron will steer clear of this red herring. It would be refreshing if, following the return to government of our party after a long hiatus, we could take a more constructive and strategic approach to the EU rather than banging the same old drum.
