Leader: The Owen referendum plan on Europe is the right one
Britain's place in Europe needs to be resolved.
By New Statesman Published 06 June 2012
The eurozone that emerges from the crisis will be unrecognisable from its present configuration. Whether or not Greece, Spain and Portugal relinquish their membership of the single currency, the likelihood is that it will survive, accompanied by a fiscal union of euro countries. In the form of the German-scripted “fiscal compact”, which would impose stringent limits on Keynesian deficit spending by member states, the process is already under way. As Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, told her party earlier this year, “Step by step, European politics is merging with domestic politics.” Eurosceptics, too, acknowledge that “ever-closer union” is Europe’s destiny. David Cameron and George Osborne are fond of referring to the “remorseless logic” of monetary union leading to fiscal union. On that, they are correct.
The implications for British politics are profound. The UK has long had a semi-detached relationship with the EU by virtue of its non-membership of the single currency and the Schengen Area. The risk now is that British influence will be diluted as the core members use the pan-European institutions to alter the terms of the single market, something Mr Cameron is powerless to prevent. Should this happen, the arguments in favour of withdrawal from the European Union would gather force.
In a column in this week's New Statesman, David Owen, the former Labour foreign secretary and leader of the Social Democratic Party, says that a referendum on Britain’s relationship with the EU is “inevitable”. The Conservatives, mindful of the poll bounce they enjoyed following Mr Cameron’s “veto” of the revised Lisbon Treaty last December in Brussels, are expected to commit to one in their 2015 manifesto. Tory strategists are keen to neutralise the increasing electoral threat from the populist UK Independence Party (Ukip), which cost the party as many as 21 seats at the last general election (there were 21 constituencies in which the Ukip vote exceeded the Labour majority). Should a second-term Conservative-led government fail to extract sufficient concessions from Brussels, it is no longer inconceivable that it could stage a Yes/No referendum on EU membership. The Liberal Democrats have previously pledged to hold such a vote “the next time the British government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU”.
Yet, as Lord Owen writes, there is another option to “federalism or bust” – “restructuring” Europe. If the argument in favour of pragmatic reform is to prevail, it is vital for the Labour Party to make its intentions clear now. The alternative, Lord Owen writes, is that it will trail “behind public opinion close to the 2015 general election and will be forced to make a desperate bid to halt the Conservative Party”. Jon Cruddas, who is now leading Labour’s policy review, has argued for a referendum on full withdrawal from the EU. “At certain stages, the political classes should invite the people into the discussion that affects their everyday lives,” he said.
Yet it is probable that such a vote would be lost, with disastrous consequences for Britain’s international standing. In spite of its present woes, the EU has been largely a force for good. It has brought peace to a continent once ravaged by war, transformed eastern Europe and the former Mediterranean dictatorships, and vastly expanded trade and prosperity.
The onus is, therefore, on Ed Miliband to identify a compromise acceptable to both his party and the British electorate. The greatest danger is that the debate remains polarised between federalists and hard sceptics, with the sceptics emerging triumphant each time. There is a patriotic and hard-headed case to be made for sustained British engagement with Europe. It is time for Labour to make it.
Read David Owen's article in New Statesman on Britain and Europe here
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


21 comments
Eurozone members face severe, unsustainable imbalances in exchange rates and external debts. The current account deficits of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain have been far worse since they joined the euro than before they joined, and have worsened every year since. Their total net external debt is far more than even the highest seen during the Asian crisis. http://www.squidoo.com/best-baby-cribs-reviews
So long as the euro exists and the EU remains a sub-optimal currency area, most members will have the wrong monetary policy. Like the gold standard, the euro forces changes in real prices and wages instead of exchange rates. And, like the gold standard, it pushes economies down and puts the burden of adjustment on weaker countries.
Eurozone members face severe, unsustainable imbalances in exchange rates and external debts. The current account deficits of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain have been far worse since they joined the euro than before they joined, and have worsened every year since. Their total net external debt is far more than even the highest seen during the Asian crisis.
Orderly defaults, debt rescheduling and devaluations are inevitable and desirable: redenominate sovereign debt in local currencies and force a haircut on bondholders. Leaving the euro is the most powerful policy tool to create growth.
During the past century 69 countries have successfully left currency areas. These countries then grew again quickly, as did Argentina in 2002. Argentina defaulted and devalued, imposing a 50 per cent haircut on banking sector assets. The government chose to drain the banks of capital (to the benefit of the public), and it sent the banking system into insolvency (to be rescued by the government). After just one quarter of contraction, its economy grew by more than 8 per cent a year, led by an export boom stimulated by the much lower exchange rate, until the world crisis started. This all contradicted the standard forecasts, that it would lack access to international credit and to international trade and that its economy would contract.
Globalisation is a fact. Many multi-national companies have larger turnovers than the GDP's of many third-world counties. Since Sorros, massive flows of funds are now available for currency speculation, and therefor significant amounts are spent on market manipulation. My point is that we have reached the stage when entire countries can be financially destroyed, and their citizens impoverished by financiers in, say, Wall Street.
Unelected financiers, of course. Financiers contemptuous and indifferent of the people in the countries that they profit from. Democracies need to work together to protect their people from these parasites, because they are true parasites, in that they killoff their host, and then move on to kill off another one.
The times have changed, even from when Sorros skinned us for a billion quid. To the sharks in the pool today, that billion is chicken feed. It is in Britain's best interests to work together with other countries, and in the EU we already have the mechanism to do that. We need involvement with Europe, we need to be ablke to infulence EU decisions.
We cannot influence the EU in our interests if we are not in it.
jocuri - jocuri noi
Are we talking about the Cameron none " veto " ?
I'm tired of hearing the EU defended on the grounds that it "brought peace to a continent once ravaged by war". I suppose it's arguable that this was the case, although personally I think Europe's peace in the 20th century had more to do with the Cold War and the fact that both superpowers knew a conflict in Europe would go nuclear. But even if you accept that the EU has fulfilled this function for the last 60 years, there's no reason to think it's the best way to guarantee peace for the next 60.
Which of these sounds more dangerous: a Europe where peripheral, debt-burdened countries go through a period of economic turmoil as they are forced to devalue their currencies, probably kicking out a number of governments in the process, or a Europe where those same countries live through a period of enforced austerity without the option of financial stimulus or devaluation, all forced on them by (as they will see it) a foreign power, which also happens to be the most powerful economy on the continent?
You only achieve prosperity through peace. Europe has been ravaged with wars for centuries, not just the 20th century.
Countries like the US under George Bush and China have played the currency war game before, it is not a unique to Europe.
The problem with devaluation is that you stoke up inflation.
High fuel prices will kill Globalisation, so the idea you send manufactured goods half way around the world is not a brilliant idea.
Which Commonwealth countries are we talking about? Australia and Canada both have free trade agreements with the US. Both also have trade agreements with the EEC (given that so much of their populations are European).Why would either be interested in a new trade agreement with the UK? That leaves Asia (Singapore and Malaysia)both locked into trade in the Asian region, Africa and India/Pakistan: not toomuch scope for trade deals especially, both are forging ahead economically. So who does the UK export to?More importantly,other than drunks and track suits, what has the UK really got to export?
Which Commonwealth countries are we talking about? Australia and Canada both have free trade agreements with the US. Both also have trade agreements with the EEC (given that so much of their populations are European).Why would either be interested in a new trade agreement with the UK? That leaves Asia (Singapore and Malaysia)both locked into trade in the Asian region, Africa and India/Pakistan: not toomuch scope for trade deals especially, both are forging ahead economically. So who does the UK export to?More importantly,other than drunks and track suits, what has the UK really got to export?
Which Commonwealth countries are we talking about? Australia and Canada both have free trade agreements with the US. Both also have trade agreements with the EEC (given that so much of their populations are European).Why would either be interested in a new trade agreement with the UK? That leaves Asia (Singapore and Malaysia)both locked into trade in the Asian region, Africa and India/Pakistan: not toomuch scope for trade deals especially, both are forging ahead economically. So who does the UK export to?More importantly,other than drunks and track suits, what has the UK really got to export?
Which Commonwealth countries are we talking about? Australia and Canada both have free trade agreements with the US. Both also have trade agreements with the EEC (given that so much of their populations are European).Why would either be interested in a new trade agreement with the UK? That leaves Asia (Singapore and Malaysia)both locked into trade in the Asian region, Africa and India/Pakistan: not toomuch scope for trade deals especially, both are forging ahead economically. So who does the UK export to?More importantly,other than drunks and track suits, what has the UK really got to export?