Christopher Howarth: If we opt back into the European Arrest Warrant, we will cede more authority to the ECJ

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

On Monday, MPs will be asked to vote on the Coalition’s policy to opt out of 127 EU crime and policing measures and then opt back into 35 of them, including virtually all the significant ones. By opting back in, the UK will cede ultimate authority to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over all these measures for the first time. Of the 100 or so measures the UK will now drop all (except for a measure on DNA data sharing), are of limited or no significance - as the Government (and the Liberal Democrats) readily acknowledge. We are not opting out of any important EU powers; we are ceding yet more authority to the ECJ. This is the last chapter in the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Giving the ECJ power over this most sensitive of areas is hugely significant and fraught with risk. For the first time, the UK could be taken to court by the European Commission if it refuses to follow other states’ requests on a wide range of crime and policing activities; sharing data and intelligence, implementing freezing orders, carrying out arrest warrants, and much, much more. Cooperation with other EU (and non EU) police forces is of course a good thing, but does not require creating a new legal order and given the history of ECJ political activism, and the fact that these agreements were not written with the Court in mind, it is surely wise to protect the UK’s judicial system by keeping the ECJ out of it. Ceding control to the ECJ could ultimately be costly both financially and more importantly in terms of control over our own law. As the title of Dominic Raab MP’s report on these measures for Open Europe put it, we should aim for “Cooperation not Control”.

So why has the Coalition decided to opt in? To be fair to Theresa May, she has had little room for manoeuvre. She has inherited a terrible hand as a result of David Miliband’s appalling negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty. The political genius that was David Miliband realised that ceding control to the ECJ was politically problematic but, rather than negotiate a deal which excluded it, (as Denmark did) he decided to settle for a time limited exemption. Yes, we have a right to opt out but if we use our right we would be out of the existing legislation on cooperation altogether, as we have said: ‘an unavoidable choice’. The choice Miliband gave his successors was between full ECJ control over everything or being thrown out of existing cooperation – a master class in UK diplomacy.

Christopher Howarth: Why the UK should push hard for EU services liberalisation. And what to do if it doesn't get it.

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

We joined what became the EU for trade. If the EU stopped being beneficial for UK trade, the reasons to remain inside would evaporate. The EU involves itself in many things where its added value is marginal or often negative. However, the one area where the EU can be beneficial is in economic liberalisation and job creation. Given the tendency of the EU to agglomerate power, its limited success in forcing economic liberalisation onto the EU’s services industries, an area fragmented by nationally imposed barriers to entry, is a startling sign of its current priorities.

The Coalition is right to prioritise economic reform as the EU’s most urgent task. The UK’s first priority in this regard should push for a new round of services liberalisation. Our research published today demonstrates that if the EU fully implemented the original Services Directive by pursuing a new “country of origin” principle, it would produce a permanent increase to EU wide GDP of up to 2.3% of GDP.  That would give the EU economy a welcome boost and show that the EU is focused on the priorities that matter.

From Christopher Howarth of Open Europe: Cameron is risking his reputation with his hints of an EU bill

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

In 2007, David Cameron put his name to an article in The Sun that said “Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum…” If you read the whole article the caveat was clear, the promise was only good until the Lisbon Treaty came into effect. But that is not how people saw it, or wanted to see it. Back in 2007 David Cameron was under pressure in the polls and in the heat of the moment he or his office oversold an existing commitment. 

Yesterday David Cameron was asked on BBC Radio 4's World at One, if he would consider "bringing forward" an EU Referendum Bill in this Parliament, on an In/Out referendum. He replied:

“I think we need to demonstrate absolutely that we are serious about this referendum; we’ve said we’re going to hold it, we’ve said it’s going to be an in-out referendum, we’ve set a date by which it must be held. I look forward to publishing a bill, to getting support for it, to doing everything I can to show to people at the next election there will be a real choice... So anything we can do to strengthen that offer, as it were, I’m prepared to consider."

The Times and the Telegraph, have written up David Cameron’s comments as an immediate promise of a vote on Parliamentary legislation for an In/Out referendum. A plan for a vote in this Parliament has obvious political benefits. It would show David Cameron means business, can be trusted to follow through and would allow Conservative candidates at the next election to point to sitting Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs who voted against a referendum and so show the necessity of a Conservative majority. With UKIP likely to be on a high following the 2014 European elections this could be a powerful tool.

Christopher Howarth: The Cyprus deal. Unjust. Unfair. State robbery. But the Euro will live to see another day

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

Over the weekend, Eurozone finance ministers put together a €10bn rescue package for the Cypriot economy. However, the deal has a sting in the tail: all deposits held in Cypriot banks will now have between 6.75 - 9.9% removed/taxed/stolen (delete as appropriate) from them - although the details are still being argued over.

There are two clear messages we can take from this. Firstly, having your own currency is vital to retaining sovereignty and that by getting into debt, either as an individual or a state, you lose your independence. Secondly, although some may argue that the injustice metered out to Cypriot depositors foretells the end of the euro, do not write the euro off yet - there is no settled body of opinion in favour of its repudiation in any state (or importantly the Cypriot parliament) and fears of depositor-backed contagion in other parts of the eurozone are (fortunately) overstated.

But what caused Cyprus’ financial crisis? In Germany, the narrative is that it was Cypriot government overspending and its banking system’s reliance on ‘hot’ Russian money. That narrative sets Cyprus up for its medicine: as German Chancellor Angela Merkel explains, “those responsible will contribute in it, not only the taxpayers of other countries, and that is what’s right.” But that obscures the fact that what did for Cyprus (and Spain) was not government debt, or a surplus of depositors, but bank lending secured on a property bubble. For Cyprus, losses on the Greek economy, property and bonds were the immediate cause of its crisis. If Cyprus had its own currency it could (like Iceland before it) have devalued, and (like the UK) have recapitalised its banks via quantitative easing - but it does not.
 
So is this deal the best plan on offer? Well, it could be worse: unlike in Greece, following the deal, Cypriot debt will come down to around 100% of its GDP. This means that Cyprus has a better chance of avoiding continued austerity and increasing debt that Greece has been forced to swallow (Greek debt is now at 160% of GDP this year). So could this be the lesser of two evils?
 
Perhaps, but if it is expedient it has created some serious injustices. A levy on bank deposits obviously attacks people who happen to have money deposited. Imagine you just sold your house and were caught out with the majority of your wealth temporarily in a bank? Remember, too, that Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades explicitly promised in his election campaign, only a few weeks ago, that depositors were safe.  To make matters worse, deposits under €100,000 are supposed to be protected by EU law, not raided by EU leaders. And Cypriot banks have frozen close to €5.8bn, i.e. imposed capital controls which are meant to be illegal under EU single market rules. It is difficult to argue this is legally fair or just. Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a state a bank and…
 
In the UK, we have held interest rates at a record low even while inflation continues above target. Over time the value of our bank deposits have reduced. If low interest rates and quantitative easing have helped support house prices and keep borrowing costs down for those saving for retirement this has, like the Cypriot levy, hit them hard. But what is potentially politically toxic about the Cypriot situation is its overnight nature.
 
What does the debt deal mean for the EU? The UK is, fortunately, not a party to eurozone politics, but this deal is likely to entrench the eurozone’s North-South stand-off, representing a victory for the German government and German taxpayers over their southern counterparts – there are German elections in September. The Cypriot parliament will now vote on the deal tomorrow. The parties which support Cypriot President Anastasiades hold 28 out of 56 MPs, so not a majority - but Anastasiades has issued a stark warning: accept the bailout deal or face “a complete collapse with a possible exit from the euro”. Given that Cypriots do not wish to leave the euro they will, bar a spectacular upset, vote for the deal. The euro will live to see another day.

Christopher Howarth: David Cameron’s EU Budget deal is a success - but it should not be oversold

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

I can imagine David Cameron’s post-summit EU budget statement already; I have defended the UK rebate, where Tony Blair did not, I have secured a cut in the budget, where Labour did not - something many (i.e Nick Clegg) believed impossible. We have listened to the House of Commons, gone out worked with allies and secured a good deal for Britain. He will then real off quotes from EU leaders saying how tough he was, how upset the French were, etc - a strong leader delivering for Britain, case closed: on to other business.

Not so fast. Today’s EU budget deal, given the realities of EU politics, was indeed a good deal for Cameron. He was up against powerful veto wielding vested interests trying to defend every last indefensible cent of a fundamentally flawed budget. Given that, securing even a small cut in the overall budget is an achievement. However, it would be a mistake for Conservatives to overplay the deal.

So what will Cameron’s EU deal mean for the UK?

Christopher Howarth: Two Unions, two borders, two islands – why the future of the EU and UK places the British Isles at a decision point

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

The last 40 years of British Isles political history could be characterised as the history of two Unions: The Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the European Union straddling both the Republic of Ireland and the UK. As a result of these two unions we have unhindered cross border traffic between England and Scotland, and across the island of Ireland. We take this for granted, but should we? The referendum on Scottish independence, set for 2014, and a potential Conservative referendum on UK membership of the EU shake these assumptions and pose interesting questions for the SNP, Ireland and unionists. These three groups have always seen the two unions rather differently.

Firstly, the Republic of Ireland. When the UK joined what became the EU the Republic of Ireland followed suit. From an Irish viewpoint the EU was a tempting prospect; generous subsidies and the promise of an environment where small states could gain real independence from, and equality with, their larger neighbours. The decision to join the Euro again seemed clear-cut. The Irish Punt dominated by Sterling could be exchanged for a currency over which Ireland would be a shareholder. With Tony Blair promising to fix UK entry into the Euro all seemed settled: they would have a currency shared with their trade partners in both continental and UK Europe. However, Tony Blair did not take the UK into the euro and the eurocrisis has unpicked the logic that euro entry would lead to more ‘independence’. Ireland’s economy – subject to an EU bailout – is now overseen by a Troika and ultimately the Bundestag.

Christopher Howarth: Banking Union could lead to a permanent sidelining of Britain in the Single Market

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

Next week the EU will continue discussing Banking Union - giving the European Central Bank the power to supervise eurozone banks. This plan will not include the UK but could in any event have a profound effect on the UK’s finance industry - if the eurozone gains a formal, permanent majority within the European Banking Authority (EBA). The plans of some eurozone states are clear: Christian Noyer, the head of the Bank of France and an ECB board member, for instance, has said "We're not against some [euro denominated] business being done in London, but the bulk of the business should be under our control…That's the consequence of the choice by the UK to remain outside the euro area."

One of the primary reasons for the UK’s EU membership is access to the Single Market, so any threat to it is existential to the UK’s membership. The UK has an undeniable interest in ensuring a liberalised single market prevails and that we are not disadvantaged by others’ protectionism. We could have some access to the Single Market from outside the EU but if you want to point to the reason why we are in the EU, foremost must be to ensure we can fight our corner on the regulation of this market. Nick Clegg has a point when he argues that outside the EU we could -

“Become the next Norway or Switzerland?... the best of both worlds: Access to Europe’s markets... Without an assault on their sovereignty... But with absolutely no say over Europe’s rules: No political representation; no national voting rights; no voice at all. They work by fax democracy: You find your instructions on the machine in the morning, and you follow them. They have no meaningful sovereignty in the EU.”

Christopher Howarth: Birmingham - three things Cameron should say on Europe and three he should not

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

Conservative Party conferences are too often overshadowed by Europe. This has, in the recent past, led the leadership to attempts to avoid discussion, clamp down on debate and hope nobody notices. Given the changes currently going on in the eurozone I think it would be a mistake to try that again this year. If the Conservative leadership does not set out a strong narrative it will be in danger of again being held hostage by those who do. So here are three things David Cameron should do to take the initiative and set out a distinctive Conservative position on Europe and three he should not.

Firstly, and most importantly, David Cameron should set out an overall vision of the UK in the EU post-eurozone crisis. This should be based on being in the single market but not in the Euro, with new membership terms that recognise the UK is not headed towards further integration, whatever the speed may be. He should be honest about the need for re-negotiation, the chances of success and the timescale, but set out that as the EU is changing there is no other option - the UK cannot cling to the status quo.

Christopher Howarth: Cameron needs credibility on Europe – here are two things he can do immediately to get it

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

The Coalition has already done some good work on the EU, the ‘referendum lock’ and the recently launched ‘audit’ of the EU’s influence on the UK to name two. However, the constraints of coalition government have tested the loyalties of Conservative MPs, party members and potential voters who wish to see substantial changes to the UK’s EU membership terms. As a result, Europe could damage the electoral coalition the Conservatives need to muster in order to win an outright victory. This is borne out by recent polling by Lord Ashcroft, which shows that 10% of Conservative voters say they would now vote for UKIP. Of course this may not happen, those who say they will vote UKIP may, when it comes to it, vote to keep the Labour party out. But it would be foolish to advocate complacency, not least as this also links to general trust in politicians. So what can be done?

Some talk of deals with UKIP, some talk of promises of a referendum, some talk of the need for a better defined Conservative vision for a post-2015 Government. These proposals all have specific problems and one major problem: Credibility. Would anyone (including in the first instance UKIP-inclined voters) believe them? Increasingly, the answer is no.

Christopher Howarth: The Conservative Party should drop its short-sighted support for Euro Fiscal Federlalism

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

Following interventions by David Cameron and Liam Fox most Conservatives now think that EU renegotiation and an EU-related referendum are necessary, though they may differ on timescale. As I’ve set out before here, there are a number of different options for an EU referendum that can go into the next Tory manifesto but on substance, the final outcome of any negotiations will largely depend on the nature and speed of eurozone integration, and the Treaty change that entails (over which the UK will have a veto). Judging from his remarks over the last few days, David Cameron genuinely wants to reform the UK’s relationship with Europe.

However, on one point the Conservative leadership is a bit lost: its explicit support for Euro fiscal federalism, which threatens to complicate any renegotiation.

Preserving the balance of power in Europe was a traditional British policy, practiced ever since Henry VIII who effortlessly switched from traditional support for Spain to France in order to prevent the emergence of a continental hegemon. However, like a lot of British tradition, it has (despite Sir Humphrey’s attempt at revival) gone out of fashion. But it is still startling to hear a Conservative Prime Minister and Chancellor – alongside euro socialists such a Francois Hollande or EU federalists such as Jean-Claude Juncker - leading calls for a European fiscal union, albeit one in which the UK would not be involved.

Christopher Howarth: Leaving the EU would raise more questions than answers - what we need is a new model of EU membership

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

Growing public frustration with the costs of EU membership is making the UK’s EU membership unsustainable and cannot be ignored. Moves in the eurozone towards fiscal union also mean the status quo EU membership terms we have may not be an option even if we wished it.

Given this, Open Europe has published a study of the UK’s trading interests and the most likely options for the UK if it were to choose to leave. We conclude that there is no clear-cut or easy option for the UK outside the EU making leaving the EU as complicated as staying in and renegotiating.

Christopher Howarth: If the Conservatives’ UKIP problem looks bad now, wait until 2014

Christopher Howarth is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

UKIP have done well in the local elections, securing almost 13% of the vote, in the places where they stood, and caused real problems for the Conservative Party. It might be tempting for the Conservative leadership to retreat into Downing Street, curl up in their well-beingness zone and ignore this local squall, or still worse, insult those former Conservatives who decided to vote UKIP. This would be a serious mistake as events are conspiring to create a perfect UKIP storm going into the 2014 Euro elections just before the (now fixed) 2015 general election.

Firstly, before I explain further, I do not believe that the Coalition’s actions on Europe are the whole, or even a major explanation of UKIP’s good showing. Not all UKIP voters are former Conservatives and even if they were, not all would return – when is a protest no longer a protest? Europe is not the only issue that motivates people to vote UKIP. Perceptions that the Conservative Party does not share voter’s concerns on immigration, law and order, has a Maoist fascination for unwanted and damaging constitutional change (such as House of Lords reform), as well as an air (hopefully temporary) of incompetence all play their part. However Europe remains an issue and cannot be ignored. This is why:

There will be a European election in 2014. Last time (in 2009) UKIP came second with 16.5% of the vote, in 2014 they could do a lot better providing momentum going into the general election. In 2009 the Conservatives had a coherent European narrative (based on a Lisbon referendum) and although they chose to focus on domestic issues it was in line with majoritarian British thinking. In 2014, the Conservatives are unlikely to have a clear narrative. In 2014, the UK will have to decide whether to opt in to EU jurisdiction over 130 EU police and Justice measures, including the EU arrest warrant, or leave them completely with the Liberal Democrats potentially fighting hard to stay in.

Christopher Howarth: If he wants Britain to have a vision for Europe, David Cameron should appoint a European Secretary

Christopher Howarth, is a senior Political Analyst at the think tank Open Europe. Prior to Open Europe he worked as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister. Follow Open Europe on Twitter.

If you find it difficult to predict the twists and turns of the Coalition’s EU policy, spare a thought for Britain’s potential European allies.

Yes, Britain has potential allies, and far more than it realises. We have never been “isolated” (a favourite expression for the EU status quo lobby), there are and have always been a number of states that share some or all of Britain’s basic focus on liberal economics and decentralisation, and in the other states the political elites’ centralising mantra conflicts with electorates who are universally more sceptical. There is fertile ground for those wishing to see a different type of EU, but it will not come about on its own. Europe needs a new vision, and the UK is its most credible potential champion. Unfortunately, the lack of a coherent UK vision is beginning to worry not only supporters of reform in Britain, but potential allies on the Continent.

Take the Coalition’s handling of the German-inspired fiscal pact. While Cameron was correct in asking for something in return for his signature to EU treaty changes, the handling of the negotiations was so opaque that two Parliamentary inquiries have still not worked out what the UK sought to achieve. Many non-euro states started off to a greater or lesser extent sceptical or split on whether to sign up to the pact, rightly feeling uncomfortable about signing away more powers over their budgets to the EU. At first, it looked as if the UK had secured a private deal with Germany, which would see the UK sign up in return for British ‘safeguards’ against the eurozone-17 making decisions for all 27 EU members in the future. But this then turned into a ‘veto’. Britain left the smaller states with an awkward decision, to say no, (potentially on their own) at a substantial political cost, or fall into line. One by one they fell into line, leaving the Czech Republic and Britain as the only non-signatories.

Christopher Howarth: What will the next Conservative manifesto say on Europe?

Christopher Howarth is a senior political analyst at the think tank Open Europe (and former Conservative Party Adviser).

The discussions at the EU summit will inevitably focus on Greece and the eurozone and so mercifully the UK will again largely be a spectator. However, EU leaders are also seeking to further advance the “fiscal compact”, which Cameron refused to sign up to back in December, again highlighting how the end point for the UK is inevitably different to that of the eurozone. It is now settled that the UK will never join the Euro, and neither can it subscribe to further integration - yet the eurozone is speeding towards fiscal union and all EU states bar the UK and Denmark are legally obliged to join. It is therefore clear that, at some point new membership terms will need to be defined, but how? Crucial to this will be what becomes policy in the Conservative Party’s next manifesto.

We have a precedent to follow as we have been here before, (in November 2009) - the last time the Conservatives set out detailed proposals on the UK’s relationship with the EU. The Czech President had just bowed to the inevitable and signed the Lisbon Treaty, creating a strategic problem for the party leadership that it could no longer ignore. On the one hand Conservative MPs, (and more importantly candidates) were viscerally hostile to the Treaty, generally believed the EU had gone too far and wanted powers back. On the other the Conservative leadership did not to wish promise anything it knew would be difficult to deliver and (rightly or wrongly) to say anything that could lead to a hostile reaction from Sarkozy and Merkel. What came out of the frantic internal discussions was set out in a speech by David Cameron’s on 4 November 2009.

Christopher Howarth: Why David Cameron should seek a UK emergency brake over EU financial laws

Christopher Howarth is a Researcher at the think tank Open Europe.

It now seems likely that France and Germany will push for an EU Treaty change at this Friday’s EU Summit. This is likely to give the EU further oversight of eurozone states’ public spending. Although this oversight would not apply to the UK, we are starting to see an EU where the balance of decision-making power is shifting towards the eurozone and, arguably, nowhere is this more important than in the area of financial regulation. Fortunately, however, Treaty change gives David Cameron an opportunity. If it is a Treaty within the EU-27 framework of all member states, he has a veto and therefore some influence. So what should he ask for in return?

Open Europe has this week published a new report, ‘Continental shift’, arguing that the UK is increasingly losing its influence on EU financial services regulation with the result that regulations are becoming restrictive and growth inhibiting. We argue that David Cameron should use the UK’s veto to gain safeguards over this vital UK industry.

Firstly, it is important to appreciate how much influence the UK veto provides. It is significant but not unlimited. Germany, in particular, wants to use the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to police eurozone states’ budgets and impose fines and sanctions on those running up deficits. To use the ECJ they need an EU Treaty change at the level of the EU-27, a eurozone-only treaty will not give them the right to use the Court and therefore no legal sanctions. However, UK bargaining power is not unlimited. If it pushes too far, the eurozone may decide to go ahead with its own treaty outside the EU structure, circumventing a UK veto.