As the UK renegotiates EU membership British High Commissioner Rob Luke says increased flexibility will benefit all member states. He tells Kurt Sansone people have grown wary of the EU’s existing decision-making model.
France has invoked the EU’s self-defence clause in the wake of the Paris attacks. In the UK there is an internal debate on whether it should carry out bombing raids in Syria. Where does the UK stand after the France attacks?
The attacks in Paris were deeply shocking and our hearts go out to our French friends. The first response is to ensure the perpetrators of these attacks are identified and brought to justice; those who helped them should also be brought to justice.
We are ready to assist our French partners in any way they may ask us to. But there are also long-term issues like tackling the ideology that has spawned these attacks. We are committed to working very closely with our partners to tackle this distorted view of the world that Isis [also known as Islamic State and Isil] represents.
Syria is acting as a recruiting ground for extremists but we believe there has to be a comprehensive approach that tries to identify a political solution. This means some sort of transition to a representative government that is able to exert control over Syrian territory. The UK is undertaking targeting action in Iraq and Prime Minister David Cameron has insisted any action in Syria will require consensus in the UK Parliament. He will continue making that case and when he feels there is consensus he will go to Parliament.
Does the UK foresee a political solution that includes Syrian President Bashar al-Assad?
There is a nascent process – the Vienna Process – which is promising to deliver a political solution. A future government in Syria has to represent its people… Assad has been responsible for murdering his own people and ultimately, in the long term Assad is not part of the picture.
The terrorists hit civilians going about their everyday lives. Could there be a solution that ensures greater security while still respecting the freedoms and privileges Western societies enjoy?
The two go hand in hand. We have to respond with better security measures to ensure society is safe but redouble our efforts to ensure that the responses do not impinge on the daily lives of our citizens because that is what terrorists want us to do. The continuation of the England-France football match (last) week was a symbolic gesture that shows a commitment by both countries that they will not be bowed by terrorist activity.
David Cameron has presented written submissions on the UK’s requests for renegotiating its relationship with the EU. With other pressing issues consistently cropping up on the table, such as migration, does the EU have an appetite to put the UK’s demands on its agenda?
I believe it does… we have been encouraged by the willingness of our EU partners to have this conversation. For me that demonstrates two things: There is a commitment to do everything possible to ensure a future within the EU for the UK; the type of change we would like to see in Europe is not just in the interest of the UK but in the interest of all 28 member States. The issues of competitiveness, a fair and reasonable arrangement for decision-making for those who form part of the eurozone and those who do not, the idea that national parliaments should play more of a role in decision making in the EU and the importance of a debate about migration and welfare in particular… these are issues that chime with many member States. In Malta some of these issues, not least the competitiveness issue, are areas where Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and others have said are willing to have a conversation about. Ultimately we are responding to public opinion. What matters is what our European citizens think about the future of the EU. While recognising this is a negotiation and may be difficult for some member States, what we are asking for is reasonable, right and healthy for all 28 States.
We are committed to working very closely with our partners to tackle this distorted view of the world that Isis represents
Joseph Muscat has pointed out there are issues the UK has raised which Malta is not necessarily against such as improved flexibility. But he has also said that any negotiated concession should benefit all 28 member states. How easy is it to achieve this?
It is not easy but it is achievable. What we put down is a set of reforms that deliver competitiveness. But this is not about the UK’s competitiveness as opposed to Malta, France or any of our EU partners. This is about how we make the EU as a collective and single market work efficiently to be able to compete with other global powers. There is a global competitiveness race and the EU has to ensure it remains competitive to ensure its citizens continue to enjoy their quality of life.
David Cameron has been criticised domestically because what he has put on the negotiating table is not enough. Can he sell this package to his people?
The type of change that has been set out is achievable. The driver behind this process is that the democratic consent for the EU as it currently operates has worn very, very, thin in the UK and I think this is also true for some other member States. The UK government believes the bundle of issues at stake go to the heart of legitimacy, fairness and flexibility. If we can secure that type of package after negotiations, the government will be able to make its case to the people and campaign for the UK to stay in the EU.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has suggested a multi-speed Europe where greater integration happens only for some countries. Is this something the UK views positively?
This isn’t a question of speed, it is a question of flexibility. The reality is the EU already contains different groupings of States that have taken different commitments. Schengen is one example. Some countries have adopted Schengen others have not. Likewise the eurozone has a large number of members with a certain level of cooperation while others are non-members. We envisage other groupings down the line. But in our view nothing in this detracts from the power of the grouping as a whole. This reflects the fact that with 28 member States you are going to have different sets of interests, different geographic and other realities. And it is right that the EU as a construct allows sufficient flexibility for member states to form into groupings that corresponds to their national interests.
Could the negotiations with the UK begin an unravelling process?
There is no reason why it should. What risks leading to an unravelling process is the EU’s failure to respond to the concerns expressed by large parts of its citizens. This is a hard-fought exercise to which the UK is investing a lot of political and diplomatic capital because we believe the UK’s and other member states’ interests are better served this way.
Assad has been responsible for murdering his own people and ultimately, in the long term Assad is not part of the picture
The in-out referendum is slated for 2017 when Malta takes on the EU presidency. Has the UK held talks with the Maltese government in this respect?
Discussions with our Maltese partners are not fixated on the timing of the referendum, which has to happen sometime by the end of 2017, but on the detail of the negotiation. Our Maltese friends are very open to what we have to say and interested in our proposals for reform. It is very clear there is a confluence of interests in terms of competitiveness and the drive to cut European red tape. These are fundamental to Malta’s economic interests. Even though we come from different sides of the eurozone there is a high degree of understanding that arrangements for ins and outs should be mutually respectful. Naturally, there are other areas where the Maltese government wants to hear more.
When do you expect negotiations to start and end?
Negotiations have started and the letter is part of the process... they will end when they end and hopefully what the process would deliver is change that will benefit all 28 member States, including the UK which will enable Prime Minister (David) Cameron to successfully argue for the UK to remain part of the EU.
Migration has been a topical issue at EU level. The UK is reluctant to have a common EU policy on migration. Why?
The UK is reluctant to engage in discussions on what is relatively empty terminology. What is a common European policy? What does calling for a European approach to migration mean? What do they mean in practice?
What we are interested in is what policy prescriptions at EU level exist to tackle this huge challenge. We believe in a detailed comprehensive approach that tackles the migratory phenomenon at different levels of the chain. What is key to us is working upstream in the countries of origin to improve the situation there and prevent people leaving and endangering their lives in first place. The UK is very active on humanitarian activity and it has two Royal Navy vessels in the Mediterranean. The upstream agenda is important as is the importance to crack down on human traffickers that benefit from this phenomenon. We want to use all the tools in the toolbox.
Relocation of migrants is one such tool and yet despite an EU agreement in September, when push came to shove very few migrants were relocated.
We don’t believe relocation is the answer. We believe that tackles the consequences of migration, rather than the causes. We have accepted resettlements and our effort is best focused on the region itself. We have invested efforts to help Syria’s neighbouring countries like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The UK has invested £1 billion to support refugees in the region so that they don’t feel the need to make the dangerous journey into Europe. Different EU countries favour different tools in the toolbox depending on where they stand on the migration chain. But I don’t agree with assertions that the UK is not sharing the burden or not offering solidarity. We are only major developed country to live up to its commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP on development aid. We were also a big supporter of the trust fund set up during the Valletta summit. The EU has to break the link between arrival and residency. We have to ensure people have the mechanism to claim asylum at point of arrival but the EU has to have the capacity of returning individuals not deserving protection to their country of origin.
There are no known specific threats to CHOGM. The assistance we are providing is in response to a request made by the Maltese government and we happily agreed to provide defence assets in support of Malta’s security operation
Legal migration is one of the solutions certain economists posit as a solution for an aging continent and yet in the Valletta summit there was little on this except for doubling places on student and academic exchange programmes. This risks creating a brain drain in Africa while keeping the door shut for lower skilled workers.
Brain drain is an issue and the idea is to improve the circumstances in African countries is for these professionals to be able to remain in their countries to aid development. The answer lies primarily with what we can do in the countries of origin. No country is saying zero migration is the answer but no country is saying no controls on migration either. Every member State has to find its position on that spectrum depending on its demographic and labour market circumstances.
The EU’s border countries feel the pinch of migrant influxes and relocation could be the practical answer for them.
We understand that call but relocation is not the answer because it risks creating a pull factor. The solution is tackling the upstream agenda and doing more to ensure the EU’s external borders are operating effectively. We are insisting that the right approach is to use different tools in the toolbox and to prioritise those which tackle the issue at source.
With CHOGM coming up the UK has offered help with security. Was this because there was a specific threat?
There are no known specific threats to CHOGM. The assistance we are providing is in response to a request made by the Maltese government and we happily agreed to provide defence assets in support of Malta’s security operation. But there are no known specific threats to CHOGM. This is precautionary.
What do you see is the main issue for the upcoming CHOGM?
The Commonwealth has a big challenge to demonstrate its relevance in responding to key global questions…
Indeed, is the Commonwealth relevant?
I believe it is relevant. The British government believes it is relevant and I understand the Maltese government also believes this but what is important is that we prove its relevance to the 3.2 billion people who live in Commonwealth countries. We have to show them living in a Commonwealth country can make a difference by ensuring that as a grouping its citizens are more secure, more prosperous and enjoy freedoms and human rights. But one issue, which Prime Minister (Joseph) Muscat has put on the agenda is climate change. We have an opportunity to demonstrate that if Commonwealth countries can come together on this issue it will bode well for the Paris UN climate change talks happening shortly after. Another challenge is how we can counter extremism. Another important issue for CHOGM is the choice of a new reforming secretary general.