Your Say

August 2004
EU recognises need for greater flexibility
First Magazine

Tony Blair and Chancellor Schröder may continue to stride the world stage, but it is the major centre right parties in both Germany and the United Kingdom which have recently had their pre-eminent position in the European Parliament renewed by June's Europe-wide elections. By 2009 the centre right parties will have held this position for a decade.

The German CDU/CSU and the British Conservatives remain the two largest national delegations within the largest Parliamentary group, Between us the Germans and the British hold 13 of the 20 major Parliamentary spokesmanships as well as many of the major committee and delegation posts.

Of course, there remain large differences in our outlook on constitutional and institutional issues - not least on the ratification of the proposed EU constitution. But these distinctions have been recognised by revisions to Group rules underpinning our European co-operation.

This co-operation has been taken forward at the top of the Conservative Party in the close and effective working relationship which Michael Howard and Angela Merkel have built up over the last year.

Joint working groups have been formed on a number of practical campaigning and organisational matters and may lead to closer dialogue on political issues such as transatlantic relations and foreign policy co-operation.

This co-operation is an essential element in building an effective centre right block in the European Parliament in order to challenge the Socialists and their allies in the Communist and Green groups. We are also seeing UK and German convergence in other unexpected areas. In Germany turnout in the European elections plunged while UK levels rose markedly. The end result has been a significant shift towards a common level of voter participation. This fall in German turnout has been matched by a rise in euroscepticism among German voters. In a recent Eurobarometer survey, only 39% were convinced that Germany had gained from its EU membership, barely 1% ahead of those who considered that Germans had gained nothing.

This negativity towards the EU is not a new phenomenon. The European summit at Laeken recognised the disconnection between EU institutions and the wider public. The solution proposed by the convention was the new EU constitution on which at least 11 states will now hold a national referendum.

The question on everyone's lips in Brussels is what happens if the constitution founders and fails to achieve ratification in one or more member states.

My colleague Daniel Hannan thinks none of this matters as the EU will carry on regardless and ignore such votes. But the animated debate in Brussels on these issues leads me to dismiss Dan's analysis.

Some French members have proposed that countries which fail to ratify will be asked to leave the EU. This is legally unenforceable and Romano Prodi himself made it clear that no such ejection could be contemplated.

In the alternative scenario, other more radical voices argue for France to unilaterally dissolve the EU and reform in with either the original six members or just the Franco-German alliance. This smacks of Elysée palace thinking of the sort which presumed that endorsement of Belgian PM Verhofstadt by France and Germany would automatically preempt all further discussion on the EU Presidency. The presence today of Mr Barroso as EU President highlights the unlikelihood of this scenario unfolding.

Others, particularly in the UK favour some sort of association agreement along the line that Norway has established with the EU. A short period of time with Norwegian diplomats quickly reveals the shortcomings of such arrangements. Participation in the single market would require countries to introduce undebated and unamended full single market legislation drawn up by the other EU countries. The democratic deficit in such arrangements should be clear.

Brussels confidence in the ratification of the constitution is at an all time low. Curiously the President of the European Parliament, Spanish socialist Mr Josep Borrell, has touchingly suggested that national parliaments are looking for a lead from the European Parliament on ratification. Therefore we will be spending the next three months analysing, debating and voting on the proposed new constitution.

The debate may produce some surprises. Already the former socialist Prime Minister of France, Laurent Fabius, has declared himself to be against the constitution - for rather different reasons than Bill Cash or David Heathcoat-Amory. M Fabius believes that the constitution entrenches a liberal market approach to EU economics, which just goes to show how difficult it will be to get any sort of consensus on a short, clear and impartial analysis on the constitution proposals.

At the end of the day people may be wise to go back to a speech Michael Howard made in February 2004 to the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in which he outlined his own vision of the future of Europe - a live and let live Europe of variable geometry, in which member states who wish to integrate more closely in certain areas would be free to do so without obliging all 25 countries to follow suit.

Whether and old or new Europe, or an inner or outer core, the EU has recently shown that it recognises the need for greater flexibility in the series of overlapping competences on matters such as the Euro, Schengen, defence cooperation and CAP reform, where some countries participate and others choose not to. This model of a flexible Europe looks even closer today than it did in Berlin just eight months ago

back to news page