On the eve of the Valletta Summit, UK Prime Minister David Cameron wrote to European Council President Donald Tusk listing his conditions for supporting a ‘Yes’ vote when the ‘In/Out’ referendum on European Union membership is held in the UK sometime in 2016 or 2017.
The demands put forward by Cameron will serve as the basis for a so-called renegotiation of the terms of UK membership of the EU. The next step is expected to be a discussion by the European Council next month with the goal being that of concluding a ‘legally binding and irreversible’ agreement at the earliest opportunity.
Should agreement be reached, Cameron has pledged to campaign with all his heart and soul ‘to keep Britain inside a reformed European Union’. Hence, when the letter was made public on Tuesday, many of us must have breathed a big sigh of relief because what the British are requesting is not some radical overhaul of the EU but a number of ‘reforms’ that may not even require amending the EU treaties. In fact, opponents of UK membership in Britain immediately denounced Cameron’s position, calling it a gimmick.
Cameron underlined that what he is calling for basically boils down to one word – flexibility - particularly in for main areas: economic governance; competitiveness; sovereignty; and immigration. He expounds on each of these demands which basically translate into a request for: legally-binding principles that guarantee that the UK and other non-Euro countries would not be disadvantaged within the EU single market; measures to boost competitiveness; a British ‘opt-out’ from further political integration and granting more powers to national parliaments to block EU legislation; and restricting the possibility of EU migrants in the UK to qualify for in-work benefits or social housing benefits to those who would have resided in the country and contributed for four years.
The British requests underscore a well known fact that for many in the UK, and elsewhere too, the EU is mostly a ‘common market’, that is a trade arrangement between neighbouring countries. The first sentence of the preamble of the Treaty of Rome enunciated the determination of the member states “to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe”. This was a political goal set by six countries in 1957 when setting up an economic community as another step in the process of reconciling former enemies and ensuring that the conditions that led to wars among European countries would no longer subsist.
David Cameron is providing us with an opportunity to reflect on our Union and on its future
This is totally lost on the ‘pragmatists’. The British Prime Minister, in his speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House on Tuesday, admitted to adopting a “practical” attitude driven by “head not heart”, dismissing more “romantic” attachments upheld by other countries. He spoke of the British attitude in this way: “We are rigorously practical. We are obstinately down to earth. We are natural debunkers. We see the European Union as a means to an end, not an end in itself.”
This is not to say that Cameron is not right about some of the things he says about the EU. In fact, even the most ardent pro-European would state outrightly that many things are not working well within the Union. For those of us who uphold what Cameron described as romantic attachments to the EU, it is more painful to see the EU in its current state than it is for the eurosceptics, for example, who must be basking in joy as they see the European project in such a state. I can even predict some of the comments that will be posted online under this article by those seeking to discredit the EU completely, considering it as the root of all evil.
When Opposition leader Simon Busuttil was replying to the speeches delivered in Parliament by European Council President Donald Tusk and European Parliament President Martin Schulz last Tuesday, he said that since he became a member of the national parliament, he has been struck by the almost total absence of any discussion on European issues. Some would add that this could be said of Maltese society as a whole. However, one has to be careful because ultimately European issues are national issues and vice-versa. This is one area where the EU has been a success which we underestimate – the day-to-day motions we repeat on a sometimes daily basis and which are determined by the application of EU rules at the local level.
Moreover, in Malta we also have a very vibrant civil society which is heavily immersed in making the most of the many opportunities which EU membership has opened up. The number of EU-related or EU funded activities and events happening in this country is enormous and there is widespread participation from people coming from various sectors of society. I know all this from personal experience because this is what I deal with day in, day out.
Where debate is lacking is when it comes to the more fundamental issues concerning the EU and its future. We had a bit of this in Parliament on Tuesday. The Prime Minister in particular outlined his vision for the EU, emphasising that member states should develop an “ever-closer union” without becoming a single country. It was interest to listen to a position that tried to reconcile the pragmatist with the romantic approach.
The Prime Minister, while appearing to agree with his UK counterpart on the need for reform, expressed his attachment to the fundamental aim of an ever-closer union as stated in the preamble of the Rome Treaty. In some way, the Opposition leader also tried to balance out his well-known ‘romantic attachment’ to the EU with a pragmatist appeal for the EU not to ignore the people’s concerns on migration.
Few would dispute Cameron’s claim that the EU is in need of reform. Most would agree with him when he states that the EU is not competitive enough, not accountable enough and perceived as being too distant from its citizens. However, the EU today is what its member states designed it to be both when setting it up and when modifying the framework to embrace new members and deepen the level of integration.
The EU will appear complicated and overly bureaucratic so long as it is the result of compromise that has resulted in what is often classified as a sui generis kind of international organisation. It is neither a classical international organisation such as the United Nations or the Council of Europe, though neither is it a federal state like the US. Hence, the institutions and the protocols that have been worked out are the result of compromise aimed at keeping everyone happy.
We do have certain supra-national functions that are entrusted to the EU institutions; however, the institutions themselves reflect a semi-federal system that seeks to preserve national sovereignty as much as possible. My view is that were one, for example, to move on to deeper integration, the institutions and the decision-making process could be simplified and this could indeed lead a more competitive and accountable union that is closer to its citizens.
So long as we have a union that is not a union, we are never going to work out a simpler arrangement than we have today except for a few modifications here or there. Moreover, the proposal to give greater powers to national parliaments in the decision-making process, as advocated by Cameron and others, could actually complicate matters even further rather than simplifying because one would be adding another stage to an already complicated and laborious process.
As is, the process already takes into account both national sovereignty and the European dimension. The EU Council represents national interests and brings together representatives of the national governments, each answerable to its own national parliament. The role of national parliaments is to scrutinise their respective government in its handling of EU affairs. To represent the interests of the citizens of the 28, we have a parliament that is directly elected by them, a European Parliament that ensures democratic legitimacy and accountability.
To his credit, David Cameron is providing us with an opportunity to reflect on our Union and on its future. I look forward to this happening in Malta.