David Cameron arrives for the second day of the EU Council on June 27, 2014 at the EU headquarters in Brussels. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Cameron's failure to block Juncker isn't a glorious defeat

Britain looks closer to the EU exit than ever - an outcome the PM never wanted.

Through an act of political alchemy, David Cameron is seeking to turn his failure to prevent Jean-Claude Juncker being nominated as the next president of the EU commission into a success.  The Prime Minister wants this outcome to be seen as a glorious defeat, casting himself as the plucky Brit who stood alone (along with hard-right Hungary) against the federalist foe.

He shouldn't be allowed to rewrite history. When Cameron made his opposition to Juncker clear three weeks ago it was in the belief that other European leaders, most importantly Angela Merkel, would rally to his cause. They didn't. Rather than siding with Cameron, Merkel publicly rebuked him for warning that Juncker's nomination would threaten Britain's EU membership. For the first time since Cameron pledged to hold an in/out referendum by the end of 2017, the Conservative hypothesis that this vow would make it easier to secure concessions was stress-tested - and exploded almost immediately.

As pro-Europeans warned at the time of the PM's Bloomberg speech, it is patient alliance-building, not blackmail, that is required for progress in Europe. Cameron's utter failure in this regard was helpfully exposed on Monday when the Polish government's private view of his strategy was published by Wprost magazine. The foreign minister of a country that should be a natural ally of the UK was revealed to have declared that Cameron "fucked up the fiscal pact", believes in "stupid propaganda" and "stupidly tries to play the system". He added: "You know, his whole strategy of feeding them scraps in order to satisfy them is just as I predicted, turning against him; he should have said: 'fuck off!'. Tried to convince people and isolate [the sceptics]. But he ceded the field to those that are now embarrassing him."

It should never be forgotten that Cameron did not want to promise an in/out EU referendum. Along with other Conservative ministers, he voted against one in the House of Commons in 2011. The pledge was wrung out of him by recalcitrant backbenchers who took him hostage and have not relinquished their grip since.

There are plenty in Cameron's party who will relish Britain's isolation today. Some, espousing revolutionary defeatism, will even welcome Juncker's nomination. As Marxists used to say, "the worse things get, the better". But they are those whose only concern is to force Britain out of the EU by whatever means possible. It was precisely to avoid capitulating to this faction that Cameron resisted granting a referendum for so long. But he gave way, insisting that the EU could be reformed to Britain's tastes. The nomination of Juncker is a hammer blow to this notion. Not only is the federalist's victory proof of the UK's feeble influence, it will also make it far harder to secure any significant concessions on the free movement of labour and the principle of "ever closer union". Never in 41 years of membership has Britain looked closer to the EU exit door - and that is not an outcome that Cameron ever wanted.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty.
Show Hide image

The Brexit Beartraps, #2: Could dropping out of the open skies agreement cancel your holiday?

Flying to Europe is about to get a lot more difficult.

So what is it this time, eh? Brexit is going to wipe out every banana planet on the entire planet? Brexit will get the Last Night of the Proms cancelled? Brexit will bring about World War Three?

To be honest, I think we’re pretty well covered already on that last score, but no, this week it’s nothing so terrifying. It’s just that Brexit might get your holiday cancelled.

What are you blithering about now?

Well, only if you want to holiday in Europe, I suppose. If you’re going to Blackpool you’ll be fine. Or Pakistan, according to some people...

You’re making this up.

I’m honestly not, though we can’t entirely rule out the possibility somebody is. Last month Michael O’Leary, the Ryanair boss who attracts headlines the way certain other things attract flies, warned that, “There is a real prospect... that there are going to be no flights between the UK and Europe for a period of weeks, months beyond March 2019... We will be cancelling people’s holidays for summer of 2019.”

He’s just trying to block Brexit, the bloody saboteur.

Well, yes, he’s been quite explicit about that, and says we should just ignore the referendum result. Honestly, he’s so Remainiac he makes me look like Dan Hannan.

But he’s not wrong that there are issues: please fasten your seatbelt, and brace yourself for some turbulence.

Not so long ago, aviation was a very national sort of a business: many of the big airports were owned by nation states, and the airline industry was dominated by the state-backed national flag carriers (British Airways, Air France and so on). Since governments set airline regulations too, that meant those airlines were given all sorts of competitive advantages in their own country, and pretty much everyone faced barriers to entry in others. 

The EU changed all that. Since 1994, the European Single Aviation Market (ESAM) has allowed free movement of people and cargo; established common rules over safety, security, the environment and so on; and ensured fair competition between European airlines. It also means that an AOC – an Air Operator Certificate, the bit of paper an airline needs to fly – from any European country would be enough to operate in all of them. 

Do we really need all these acronyms?

No, alas, we need more of them. There’s also ECAA, the European Common Aviation Area – that’s the area ESAM covers; basically, ESAM is the aviation bit of the single market, and ECAA the aviation bit of the European Economic Area, or EEA. Then there’s ESAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, which regulates, well, you can probably guess what it regulates to be honest.

All this may sound a bit dry-

It is.

-it is a bit dry, yes. But it’s also the thing that made it much easier to travel around Europe. It made the European aviation industry much more competitive, which is where the whole cheap flights thing came from.

In a speech last December, Andrew Haines, the boss of Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority said that, since 2000, the number of destinations served from UK airports has doubled; since 1993, fares have dropped by a third. Which is brilliant.

Brexit, though, means we’re probably going to have to pull out of these arrangements.

Stop talking Britain down.

Don’t tell me, tell Brexit secretary David Davis. To monitor and enforce all these international agreements, you need an international court system. That’s the European Court of Justice, which ministers have repeatedly made clear that we’re leaving.

So: last March, when Davis was asked by a select committee whether the open skies system would persist, he replied: “One would presume that would not apply to us” – although he promised he’d fight for a successor, which is very reassuring. 

We can always holiday elsewhere. 

Perhaps you can – O’Leary also claimed (I’m still not making this up) that a senior Brexit minister had told him that lost European airline traffic could be made up for through a bilateral agreement with Pakistan. Which seems a bit optimistic to me, but what do I know.

Intercontinental flights are still likely to be more difficult, though. Since 2007, flights between Europe and the US have operated under a separate open skies agreement, and leaving the EU means we’re we’re about to fall out of that, too.  

Surely we’ll just revert to whatever rules there were before.

Apparently not. Airlines for America – a trade body for... well, you can probably guess that, too – has pointed out that, if we do, there are no historic rules to fall back on: there’s no aviation equivalent of the WTO.

The claim that flights are going to just stop is definitely a worst case scenario: in practice, we can probably negotiate a bunch of new agreements. But we’re already negotiating a lot of other things, and we’re on a deadline, so we’re tight for time.

In fact, we’re really tight for time. Airlines for America has also argued that – because so many tickets are sold a year or more in advance – airlines really need a new deal in place by March 2018, if they’re to have faith they can keep flying. So it’s asking for aviation to be prioritised in negotiations.

The only problem is, we can’t negotiate anything else until the EU decides we’ve made enough progress on the divorce bill and the rights of EU nationals. And the clock’s ticking.

This is just remoaning. Brexit will set us free.

A little bit, maybe. CAA’s Haines has also said he believes “talk of significant retrenchment is very much over-stated, and Brexit offers potential opportunities in other areas”. Falling out of Europe means falling out of European ownership rules, so itcould bring foreign capital into the UK aviation industry (assuming anyone still wants to invest, of course). It would also mean more flexibility on “slot rules”, by which airports have to hand out landing times, and which are I gather a source of some contention at the moment.

But Haines also pointed out that the UK has been one of the most influential contributors to European aviation regulations: leaving the European system will mean we lose that influence. And let’s not forget that it was European law that gave passengers the right to redress when things go wrong: if you’ve ever had a refund after long delays, you’ve got the EU to thank.

So: the planes may not stop flying. But the UK will have less influence over the future of aviation; passengers might have fewer consumer rights; and while it’s not clear that Brexit will mean vastly fewer flights, it’s hard to see how it will mean more, so between that and the slide in sterling, prices are likely to rise, too.

It’s not that Brexit is inevitably going to mean disaster. It’s just that it’ll take a lot of effort for very little obvious reward. Which is becoming something of a theme.

Still, we’ll be free of those bureaucrats at the ECJ, won’t be?

This’ll be a great comfort when we’re all holidaying in Grimsby.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Brexit. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.