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: Why Conservative MPs ought to have rejected Coalition Government

Cutting through the "Rose Garden romance" and subsequent disputes over NHS reforms through to the empty European Union Bill, the key reason for the Coalition Government’s existence has been to secure the highest ministerial positions for senior members of the Conservative party leadership after 13 long years in opposition, and reward their Liberal Democrat king-makers with gesture prizes to accommodate their desperate quest for achieving recognition and power (after some 70 years in opposition) - thereby securing their joint legislative parliamentary majority to rule. At the top, David Cameron. A Coalition Prime Minister, not a Conservative Prime Minister.

As Benjamin Disraeli told the House of Commons on 16 December 1852: “But coalitions, although successful, have always found this, that their triumph has been brief. This too I know, that England does not love coalitions.” Conservative MPs ought to have rejected Coalition Government - and Disraeli’s sense of inevitable failure of Coalitions is taking place. It may be that Liberal Democrats are paying the price for Coalition now, but why are Conservatives not convinced that they are next?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean put it in a modern context when considering the current Coalition on 20 January: “What is clear is that this coalition is different from previous ones in this country in a number of important respects. The first and most important is that this coalition has not been voted for as a coalition by the British people.”

As a consequence, in line with the prioritised and intense interests of the leadership of the participating political parties and their own private coalition agreement, we witness the subversion of the manifestoes on which the Coalition MPs were elected, the breaking of the democratic connect between the Coalition MP and voter through the surrendered manifesto and most important of all, the abandonment of the national interest in pursuit of the power-hunting party leaderships seeking private agendas which are fixed not by their respective voters, or even by their party grassroots, but by the party leaderships themselves.

There are some who see in the face of the Coalition a great "make-up-and-get-along" united government but, sadly, they have been duped.  The arrangement, one year on, remains a dangerous unrepresentative machine parading as "unity in diversity" but which in principle, is undemocratic and against the national interest. I am afraid raw power has taken over.

The great difficulty with the Coalition Government’s programme, created on the basis of the Coalition Agreement of 20 May 2010, is that it is not a democratic mandate since it was not voted upon at the last election: the Government’s programme has no democratic basis in the wishes of voters. 
As the House of Commons’ Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said in its report on the formation of coalition government on 20 January 201: “By its nature, the policies of a coalition government have not been endorsed by the people.”

The Coalition Agreement of 20 May relinquished the pledges of the Coalition parties - Conservatives and Liberal Democrats - in their respective political manifestoes, and thereby surrendered the democratic wishes of the voters at the last election. The Coalition Government has subsequently - in the undemocratic pursuit of its own legislative programme of government - further flouted basic democratic principles and the wishes of voters. The Coalition arrangements result in illegitimate, unstable and undemocratic government against the national interest. The British electorate deserve better, legitimate, stable and democratic government - a government agenda they voted for.

Conservative MPs will see their appeasement played out in every step of Coalition politics: their reneging on manifesto promises on the Human Rights Act – which would have, for example, dealt with the ECHR/prisoner voting situation – through to the various European Union commitments.

It is clear that both the Liberal Democrats and their partner, the Conservatives, must take active and urgent steps toward abandoning the undemocratic Government programme, rejecting the Coalition Agreement of last May, returning their Members to pursue the pledges in their respective political manifestos on which they were elected - and, if necessary, call an immediate General Election in order to form a democratically elected Government.