Jim McConalogue: The UK will be hemmed in by an impoverished set of European neighbours when a two-tier EU is created

By Jim McConalogue

The Foreign Secretary William Hague maintained at the Conservative Party Conference that the Eurozone had become a “burning building with no exits” in a speech that was also careful to point out that British interests were closely tied to the future of the Euro area. I generally agreed with the tone of that speech but cannot now help but extend his analogy because the truth of the situation is that Britain is trapped around the burning Eurozone building with no exits. 

What alarms me most over last Wednesday’s Euro summit is this: Eurozone ministers have proposed and agreed increasingly harmonised economic and fiscal government measures that will govern their Euro-policy and strongly affect the wider European Union but, because Britain is not part of those Eurozone decision-making meetings, we are effectively being excluded from a political process in which, as EU members, we are supposedly entitled to influence European Union policy. It is drastic and must be challenged. In other words, in the creation of a two-tier Europe, we are shut out, to the detriment of growth in the UK economy. 

Worse still, when Eurozone ministers come to agree on tighter fiscal union and economic government among themselves –  a policy which the Chancellor actively promotes – and it is then proven that their economically harmonised system does not work, as many economists agree is likely, then Britain will be hemmed in by an impoverished set of European neighbours with no basis for growth and having ourselves adopted the draconian rules, regulations and laws that the Euro-17 have made for us (within a Euro-centric framework). We will have suffered the truly negative consequences of a two-tier Europe. 

Jim McConalogue: Break-up of the euro – a ‘practical’ policy?

By Jim McConalogue

In a little-observed statement in the House of Commons on Monday this week, the Chancellor George Osborne – in responding to a question by Tory backbencher and Chair of the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Bernard Jenkin MP, over the “orderly break-up of the euro” – stated in his reply, “… as I say, it would not be sensible to advocate to our European colleagues the break-up of the euro. That would greatly diminish what we had to say in these meetings, as it would not be seen as practical …”. Not be seen as practical?

The situation we are in is extremely imperfect – and George Osborne has been right to discuss our relationship with the Eurozone – but is it a tip-toeing diplomatic exercise to oppose a break-up, then maintain that is not practical or even unhelpful, and for the Chancellor to state, “I think that it would be disastrous for Britain’s economy if the eurozone were to break up, and I think that it would also be disastrous for the economies of the eurozone themselves”? Disastrous? If we break the economic problem down into its component parts, how difficult would it be to pursue? It is certainly not what Eurozone states want to hear – but surely we should be bringing the issue up with them in any case.

The interesting phrase was “it would not be seen as practical” – because it turns out, the reverse is true. As many in this country predicted, it does not appear to be working and it is the ministers of our Eurozone neighbours and EU institution officials that have never been practical about its workability and will do anything to keep the Euro-dream alive, at any cost. Many previous Chancellors – and Osborne in this sense may not be much different to his Conservative predecessors of the past 40 years, since 1972 – are reluctant to assert themselves on the European stage and simply say: this is not working for Britain. And because you have to tell a friend the painful truth does not mean it is impractical advice. Meanwhile, our history of acquiescence in this situation is concerning.

Jim McConalogue: The EU's hypocrisy over the Egyptian regime (and Britain's role in it)

By Jim McConalogue

Let’s get this straight – if we are to talk about any political hypocrisy in relation to events now unfolding in the Middle East, it is Britain’s part in the European Union’s hypocrisy over the Egyptian regime – notably, the clear discrepancy between generous EU funding and decades of failed demands for real democracy.

What makes this infinitely worse is that under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, the Coalition Government has inherited a state of affairs in which it has quite clearly lost its power, action and influence to take any decision on the key issues, has ceded powers to this political force in the shape of its new EU Foreign Minister and our ministers being reduced to making public relations statements.

Historically, with British consent, the European Union has been cooperating greatly with autocratic rulers in the Middle East. Regimes such as that of Mubarak’s in Egypt have enjoyed the EU’s financial support over the past 30 years. As is now clear, on 11 February, following several days of protests and violence, Hosni Mubarak eventually stepped down – but why are we not prepared to question the role of our country’s failures in what went wrong? 

Jim McConalogue: Protecting parliamentary sovereignty

It is well worth reading Paul Goodman’s article on the EU Bill and the clauses being put forward and debated today.

Firstly, the sovereignty of Parliament is the democratic basis of the UK constitution but has become increasingly questioned by judges. Many will remember reading the election manifesto pledge and the Prime Minister made clear the need for a “Sovereignty Bill”, the purpose of which is to restrain “unaccountable judges”. But Clause 18 of the EU Bill is not a “sovereignty clause” and it would clearly undermine parliamentary sovereignty, by encouraging judicial supremacy. It is vital therefore that MPs ‘reaffirm’ Parliament’s sovereignty as a fact of our political system by voting for Bill Cash’s amendments today.

Secondly, as Paul Goodman picks up on the observations of Martin Howe QC that Clause 18 “is sound in principle, long overdue, and should be strongly supported”, it is worth noting that Howe provided superb written evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, making clear that “the heart of the problem is remedying any possible ambiguity in the 1972 Act itself”, which as it stands, this Bill does not currently do. See his evidence here. That is why vital amendments are needed.

After all, one thing above all else that is needed is clarity – ambiguity opens the door for the judges and the common law principle to apply and thereby assert their authority.

Jim McConalogue: Why the Prime Minister’s ‘Happiness Index’ is a European plot

David Cameron has said “From April next year we will start measuring our progress as a country not just by how our economy is growing, but by how our lives are improving, not just by our standard of living, but by our quality of life. … We’ll continue to measure GDP as we’ve always done, but it is high time we admitted that, taken on its own, GDP is an incomplete way of measuring a country’s progress.” The PM asked the Office for National Statistics to develop subjective measures. It seems that potential indicators will include health, levels of education, inequalities in income and the environment. David Cameron’s ideas seem overwhelmingly similar to proposals by the European Commission on measuring GDP.

Margarida Vasconcelos at the European Foundation informs me that the European Commission previously put forward its plans in a report entitled ‘GDP and beyond, Measuring progress in a changing world’, adopted in September 2009. The Commission has stressed that GDP is not a welfare measure and it does not measure environmental sustainability or social inclusion. Consequently, the Commission wants to complement it with other statistics such as information on greenhouse gas emissions, loss of natural landscapes, air pollution, waste generation, and health.

The Commission is intending to develop indicators to measure progress in delivering social, economic and environmental goals in a sustainable manner. The aim is to assess national and EU policies on whether they are successful in delivering the abovementioned goals. The European Commission intends to change how economic success is measured and proposes to implement five actions to achieve those aims. The Commission is planning to develop a comprehensive environmental index and improve quality-of-life indicators. The aim is to publish such index in parallel to GDP in order to assess EU and national policies deliver the level of environmental protection, which is expected. The Commission will also consider developing comprehensive indicators of quality of life and well-being.

The Commission has pointed out that GDP and unemployment figures are published on a timely basis but not environmental and social data. They will therefore endeavour to produce environmental and social data more rapidly. The Commission wants to put in place a more accurate reporting on distribution and inequalities in order to allow a better definition of policies on social and economic cohesion.

They have been developing, along with Member States, the EU Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs) in order to monitor progress on the objectives of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS). However, according to the Commission, SDIs are not always based on the most recent data. Hence, the Commission is planning to develop a Sustainable Development Scoreboard in order to allow an identification of environmental trends and a benchmarking of best practices. The ‘Happiness Index’ appears to be very much part of that.

Jim McConalogue: How Europe threatens British national life

Jim McConalogue, Editor of the European Journal, offers a general introduction to what's wrong with our relationship with the EU.

The European Union threatens British national life to the extent that the European Treaties which have led to the creation of a European government subvert the laws, governance and way of life inherent to the British nation state, its laws and its society. This perceived threat is not derived from being sceptical about internationalism, since this is at the heart of being British and neither is it about being sceptical of trading with Europe since it is in Britain’s foremost interest to maintain excellent trading relationships with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world within a low/no-tariff free trade area. But there is a very real threat.

The everyday reality of the threat of Europe on British national life is explained by its negative effect on Parliament, the legislative process, British businesses, Britain’s inability to give a helping hand to the economies of countries in the world less fortunate than our own, a failure to control its trade policy and an inability to control immigration flows:

Jim McConalogue: Are the Conservatives merely the lesser of two evils?

James McConalogue, Editor of the European Journal, fears that the lack of honourable policies on the EU stains the Conservative Party's current strong standing in the polls.

So, mid-December’s YouGov poll of nearly 1,500 people showed that the Conservatives have reached their strongest position for fifteen years. Although polling can sometimes detract from the long-term electoral battle and probably says more about the failures of Conservative leadership over the past fifteen years, it is a welcome and positive result.

People are not merely giving up with Brown’s dire (mis)management of a Britain in crisis – they appear to be in the position of readily transferring votes to Conservatives.

The Conservatives are now on 45%, against 32% for Labour, compared with 41% and 35% a month ago. This is a notable lead for Cameron but it is worth asking – is David Cameron’s leadership and his concrete voting strategy within Parliament really any better? In brief, is this a Conservative lead resulting from good luck rather than good management? Come the general election, I am sure the right management can make a real difference. A recent issue that is worthwhile examining is one in which the Government may be swayed by effective Conservative opposition – the pressure to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, given that the Treaty text was signed by Gordon Brown on 13 December.

The Lisbon Treaty is a concern that will have a massive impact on the daily lives of ordinary British people – it will lead to a ‘reorientation’ of our national Parliament, and bring about major changes in British policy on energy, immigration, justice and home affairs and foreign policy. Whilst the Conservative endorsement of a referendum on such a Treaty is a good thing, there are clear indications that this is a whitewash, attracting populist votes with no real intention of honouring those votes. Why?

Jim McConalogue: Let’s have a real boycott for the “Wily Bastard” in Europe

James McConalogue, Editor of the European Journal, criticises Gordon Brown for not being serious about boycotting the EU summit.

Gordon Brown’s most recent position toward the EU-Africa summit is yet another example of how impossible it is for Britain to pursue its own foreign policy through the channels of the European Union. Brown has pretended to boycott the EU summit. However, the British Prime Minister can simply not ignore the fact that the presence of Mugabe provides conditions for an official boycott of the summit. He has told the people of Britain that he could not possibly attend the summit – at which Mugabe is expected to attend – but through the backdoor, out goes his diplomatic lackey, Baroness Amos in his place. That is not a boycott in any sense of the word.

If Brown had intended this to be an official boycott, then his representative would not have been sent. As it turns out, Brown has dispatched his loyal henchmen to attend on behalf of our nation. Why is it, then, that Brown could not honour the boycott? After all, surely Baroness Amos, from her experience of African affairs in the Foreign Office, could have suitably advised Brown on the seriousness of doing deals with dictatorial murderers on the African continent and on Britain’s relationship with Zimbabwe under such conditions.

The difficulty, I believe, rests with our commitment to a European policy (with which Brown refuses to break). The British Prime Minister is so attached to a vision of Europe, he can no see no harm in negotiating with the murderous villains on the world stage and sends a representative to ensure Britain’s place at the table of the world’s greatest fools. Of course, that starts with Europe, where the Prime Minister’s and select officials of the 27 Member States are compelled to attend. Baroness Amos should simply not be there on behalf of Britain and the words that she speaks shall be spoken in her own name.

James McConalogue: Equivalent, but not the same

James McConalogue, Editor of the European Journal, comments on the ESC's finding that the EU Treaty is substantially equivalent to the Constitution.

The Labour-centric, All-Party House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has now reported on the legal and political importance of the EU Reform Treaty. Beyond its examination of the ‘secretive’ way in which the European Reform Treaty had been negotiated and the fact that no national parliament has been allowed time to carry out proper scrutiny, their report is damning: “the new Treaty produces an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty.” In the UK, it offers no support to Gordon Brown’s current position or Tony Blair’s ‘red lines/opt outs’ approach on the Treaty, and more positively, it goes some way to supporting the Conservative case for a referendum.

However, it is important to point out that on a careful analysis of the European Scrutiny Committee report, the line taken should be that the Reform Treaty “produces an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty.” Please be aware that by this, it does not automatically mean “the same”, since, unlike the Constitutional Treaty, the Reform Treaty does not repeal existing Treaties but it amends the Treaty of Rome (economic powers) and Maastricht Treaty (European government) into a Union with a self-amending text. In short, I am led to believe that it is saying that this new Reform Treaty is ‘equivalent but not the same’. Politically, it delivers the same powers, if not more; legally, it is a different species of document.  And yes, both the Constitutional Treaty and the new Reform Treaty both amounted to fundamental constitutional change. That is grounds for a referendum.

James McConalogue: Gordon Brown’s Cabinet must reform Blair's Euro-world

James McConalogue, Editor of the European Journal, argues that Brown should focus on reforming the EU, particularly the ECHR, as it has so much power to make decisions about his country.

Gordon Brown, I can appreciate, will have a tough job indeed. To undo and reform ten years of Blairite isolationism (from the parliament, public and those beyond Europe) is difficult since Blair’s key achievements – a torn “multicultural society”, an undemocratic approach of neglecting the national electorate on national and foreign policy issues, a botched attempt to reform the national health service, a tragic educational view of enriching deprived kids by placing them into multi-billion pound “successful academies”, and a joint-declaration of war on two Middle Eastern countries – have cost Britain dearly. After stepping into this predicament, there are two areas for which Gordon Brown must seek immediate remedial action: European reform and national security.

First, Brown must turn to his policy on Europe. I have many doubts of his abilities to balance the powers of Westminster with those of the EU – after all, there is no point in starting the premiership reforming the Houses of Parliament when all the decision-making now takes place in Brussels.

James McConalogue: Why Gordon Brown needs more than Balls to reform Europe

Jim McConalogue, Editor of the European Journal, fears that Ed Balls', and therefore Gordon Brown's, "hard-headed Europeanism" will be more of the same. 

Yesterday, Gordon Brown’s key political architect, Ed Balls MP, wrote an amazingly refreshing article in The Sunday Times on the future of the EU treaty. The article entitled "Europe doesn’t need a treaty" seemed to offer a new middle ground rationale between pro-European Blairism and anti-EU supporters calling for the complete withdrawal from the European Union. Whilst it does offer a pathway out of blind Europeanism, which has been advocated by Tony Blair over the past ten years, its grounds and aims appeared to be rather empty – "Our approach should be to engage the British and European public interest where we can – while standing firm where our national interests would be damaged." But, as I mention, this is some resolution on the tragically misguided path pursued by Blair.

James McConalogue: Governed by Europe - Why Can’t Britain Remove Burdens from Brussels?

James McConalogue is Editor of The European Journal. He manages the European Foundation, chaired by Bill Cash MP.  The Foundation proposes the renegotiation of all existing and forthcoming EU treaties. Holding to its original raison d’être – of “yes to European trade, no to European government” – the European Foundation does not advocate withdrawal from the European Union, rather its thoroughgoing reform.

It appears to be a bad day for British sovereignty when its own national parliament – after tabling Amendments, criticisms and Clauses for proposed Bills – has already decided on the submission of national sovereignty to foreign powers and proceeds with Amendments as a process of mere formality. Furthermore, that has been the disheartening predicament for parliamentary critics of EU integration within the House of Commons and Lords during the pro-European governments of the past thirty years. There has always been a healthy public opposition to further EU integration within Britain but without listening to the true Eurorealist voices today and, in my view, without empowering a Conservative Party able to confidently defend the authority of the British legislature the future of a national Parliament is bleak.

Take, for example, the concerns of deregulation and economic competitiveness in Britain. The current Labour government had hastily pushed the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill through Parliament since early 2006. The Bill, it was claimed, would reduce the burdens on business through deregulation of burdensome legislation originating from Westminster – and thereby, create the conditions for increased competitiveness. It did not take long for Conservative critics of the Bill to realise some fundamental flaws within the text. Yes, deregulation is necessary to increase economic competitiveness but the deregulation of what and by whom? If those concerns are not considered, then we are deregulating industry from no particular legislation for no particular reason and by the hands of those who have no idea of where the legislation stems from. In truth, it stems from Europe, not Westminster.

Thus, when Bill Cash, MP for Stone, attempted to propose a sound new Amendment and Clause – Clause 17, to be precise – providing a mechanism for not only the deregulation of domestic legislation but to enable the repeal or amendment of European legislation where attempted national renegotiation had failed, it was immediately cleared by parliamentary counsel. Furthermore, it was endorsed by the Conservative Party, whipping it in both the House of Commons and House of Lords. In short, Bill Cash and colleagues felt it significant that since deregulation should consider European legislation as much (if not more) than UK-derived legislation, there should be a clause to maintain deregulation through upholding Westminster parliamentary supremacy over the European Communities Act 1972. This would ensure that burdensome regulation stemming from the EU should be renegotiated to ensure compliance with Westminster legislation. The government majority dismissed the Clause and proceeded with Royal Assent, so that the Act now only caters for a reduction of burdens stemming mostly from national laws. It rejected the Clause on the basis that laws passed in accordance with European law are, in fact, superior to United Kingdom law. However, since at least 65% of our legislation now originates from the EU, the passing of the Bill has been a pointless task, ensuring nothing more than continued legal supremacy of Europe and further binding regulations for British business (not less!).