The campaign for Britain’s future relationship with the European Union is gaining momentum. So far, the arguments presented by both sides can be described as lacklustre at best. Fear is a common denominator employed by both campaigns.
As with all political campaigns based on superficial emotions, the debate is somewhat dull, uninspiring and unengaging. The campaign took a surreal turn when the boisterous Mayor of London announced that he was backing the Brexit front. His stand seemed to expose him as a political opportunist eyeing the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Recently, The Sun alleged that, in a private conversation, the Queen alluded to favouring Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. This prompted Buckingham Palace to lodge an official complaint with the press watchdog.
These antics have done nothing to raise the tone of the campaign. Such campaigns leave the political system in a much poorer state; they rob citizens of the opportunity to develop a proper understanding of the issues and they prevent the development of meaningful dialogue. The result is that superficiality emerges triumphant.
The debate over Britain’s future in Europe has long fallen in this category. In a position paper for the Centre for Policy Studies, the late Nevil Johnson looked at the tumultuous relationship between Britain and Europe. Written in the year 2000, Mr Johnson’s views are still very valid today.
He identifies a problem with the tone of the debate: “Any effort to think critically about the future shape of the EU and Britain’s relationships within it runs the risk of being regarded as simply another exercise in euro-scepticism.”
He observed that “while it is acceptable to indulge in colourful rhetoric offering visions for the future, there is very little space for asking critical questions about specific changes that might be made to improve the functioning of EU institutions and the effectiveness of its policy implementation.”
Such campaigns… rob citizens of the opportunity to develop a proper understanding of the issues
Mr Johnson had set out three options for Britain’s relationship with the EU. The first option was for Britain to adopt a “Business as usual” attitude which he believed would prompt a crisis at a future date.
The second option, which he believed was the ideal course of action, was for Britain to remain within the EU and persuade other member states of a looser and more practical association. This could lead to a better system of governance within the EU. Withdrawal was the third and option of last resort.
Mr Johnson was critical of those who believed Britain could re-negotiate the terms of EU membership. He expressed doubts as to whether this was possible. David Cameron took a gamble when he pledged to do just this.
Following intense negotiations with other EU officials and leaders from the 27 member states, Prime Minister Cameron said he would be campaigning in favour of Britain’s continued membership within a reformed EU.
Philip Hammond, the British Foreign Secretary, backed the Prime Minister. He warned that a potential Brexit would be seen as “two fingers to European leaders” and that Britain would have to “expect the same in return.” He pointed towards the financial and economic uncertainty that would ensue following a potential Brexit while stating that “the mood of goodwill towards Britain will evaporate in an instant”.
Among the predictable chorus of Brexit supporters only one voice stood out: that of the former Foreign Secretary Lord David Owen. In the early 80s, Lord Owen had broken off with the then Labour leadership over its attitude towards the European Economic Community. As a committed Europhile, he had joined four other MPs to form the Social Democratic Party. Now, in the run-up to the June 23 referendum, he stated clearly that his “decision is a confident one: now is the time to vote to leave the EU”.
Lord Owen argued that a potential Brexit “could be the spark we need to re-energise our nation” for “to remain in the EU is in my judgement a more dangerous option for British security in its deepest sense – economic, political, military and social – than remaining in a dysfunctional EU dragged down by a failing eurozone”.
The choice over Britain’s future relationship with the EU is, naturally, for the British electorate to determine. Polls currently show a marginal lead in favour of Britain’s continued membership. Such a result would be met with relief in various European capitals.
Regardless of the outcome, there are two EU-wide consequences which cannot be ignored. Firstly, the referendum result will change the political dynamics within the EU. It can have the corollary effect of strengthening a two-tier (or multi-tiered) system within the EU or encouraging the prospect of an “ever closer Union”. Secondly, more countries will question their future relationship with the EU. Member States and EU institutions will have to react and respond to these developments.
An engaging and meaningful debate about the future and the form of the EU is necessary. Such deliberations should engage with the economic, social and security challenges which the EU faces. Indeed, all of these challenges do not only affect the EU itself but have wider implications across the continent and its neighbourhood.
Nevil Johnson’s advice seems somewhat prophetic: “There can be no question that this climate of conformity and artificial optimism makes the task of constructive criticism exceedingly difficult.” Now is the time to ditch conformity and optimism and engage with issues in a more realistic manner.
andre.deb@gmail.com
André P. DeBattista is a member of the Political Studies Association (UK) and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.