Europe is Cameron’s Achilles heel

Ed Miliband could pull a trick by following Gordon Brown’s firm line on the EU’s attempts to central

Membership of the European Union is not a condition. It is a process. That process is clear: a steady transfer of power from nation states to Brussels. Eurocrats are not accountable to voters; they are judged only by their peers, the test of success being the expansion of power and the size of the bureaucracy over which they preside. Every effort is made to frame actions and decisions so that voters need not be consulted: witness the recent decision of the European Commission to amend Article 136 of the Lisbon Treaty merely by announcing an addition that permits the establishment of a permanent bailout mechanism to transfer credit from one country to another. This is the very thing the Germans were promised would not happen when they signed up to the Lisbon Treaty.

The process goes something like this. In the beginning there is a general understanding that on important matters individual states have the right to opt out of decisions taken by a majority of the members. That right is anathema to the eurocracy, as an opt-out by one nation threatens their ability to carry forward some new scheme, just as Ireland's insistence on maintaining a low corporate tax rate (about half the EU average) threatens high-tax countries' ability to compete for foreign investment.

What price flexicurity?

So, national rights are whittled away. As is the notion that any significant change in the governance structure should be imposed only after consultation with the peoples of the member states. Referendums are to be avoided, prior promises of sitting and wannabe prime ministers notwithstanding.

The end result is the extension of one-size-fits-all, from interest-rate policy to the entire range of economic management (and not only among eurozone members). The EU process rolls on, the goal being to homogenise economic policy in all 27 member states. In the case of Britain, Brussels already determines how many hours doctors are allowed to work, which reduces parliament's control over the cost and performance of the National Health Service. Having failed in its efforts to introduce greater flexibility into the labour markets of several EU members - the new goal is a watered-down version of "flexibility" called "flexicurity" - the eurocracy has to make certain that competition from members willing to allow employers and workers to develop their own arrangements cannot "unfairly" compete. Hence the latest attack on Britain's uniquely heavy reliance on part-time workers, by imposing huge costs on companies that employ such workers.

The process will go on, as enthusiasts for the "European Project" have never denied. Once the new uniform tax base is put in place, there will most certainly be a call for the application of uniform tax rates to that base. "Attention will be paid," says the EC directive, "to tax policy co-ordination." And three new EU regulatory agencies now have a say in how the City, the jewel in Britain's economic crown, is regulated. We are reaching the endgame of the process, a confluence of two forces that will permit so huge a transfer of sovereignty that even David Cameron, who is good at this sort of thing, will not be able to explain why he will not call the referendum that he promised.

The first is the plight of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and perhaps Spain. Germany, the principal financier of all bailouts, has insisted on what has come to be called "A Pact for the Euro". The French, long hoping for "economic government", and the eurocracy, aware that this is their opportunity to seize control of economic policy not only in the eurozone but throughout the EU, are enthusiastic supporters of the German initiative.

The latest effusion from the European Council is aptly titled "The Euro Plus Pact. Stronger Economic Policy Convergence for Competitiveness and Convergence". It aims to achieve "a new quality of economic policy co-ordination . . . leading to a higher degree of convergence . . . Particular attention [will be paid to] wage setting arrangements . . . the bargaining process . . . wage settlements in the public sector . . . lifelong learning."

National legislation for the banking sector will give "full respect [to] the Community acquis", which, for the uninitiated, is the accumulation of laws and court decisions that weigh heavily on EU firms. There is more, but you get the idea - this is a significant and irreversible part of the process of moving power to an unelected bureaucracy.

Not to worry; all of this applies only to eurozone countries, which leaves Britain unscathed. Think again, and reckon with the second force now in operation. The eurozone 17 have agreed to meet regularly, and EU members that have opted to retain their own currencies will not be invited. Important economic decisions will be taken without the 17 consulting Britain, and there will be other holdouts.

Rise of the eurogang

The next step will be for the eurogang of 17 to outvote the more liberal and market-oriented non-euro ten in wider EU meetings. If that seems implausible, ask yourself whether it once seemed plausible that a British prime minister would break his pledge to put a new EU constitution to a referendum, or to prevent a rise in the EU budget. Or that Britain would end up sharing in the cost of bailouts of Ireland and Portugal, moves aimed at preserving the viability of the euro, something Gordon Brown put Britain in a position to avoid.

Membership of the EU is not a decision to participate in things the way they are, but the way they will become - in other words, a process, and one that the eurocracy has learned to manage so as not to create a casus belli that would produce an outcry for a referendum, which might halt the transfer of power away from elected representatives and national parliaments. That transfer will continue.

Unless, either out of devotion to democratic principles or by virtue of cold political calculation, the Labour Party calls for a referendum if the process of transferring sovereignty continues. Or even calls for withdrawal, now that the World Trade Organisation prevents discrimination by the EU against non-members. Such a call would give Cameron the choice of antagonising his core supporters by opposing it, or fracturing his coalition by supporting it. Whatever the motive and outcome, democracy in Britain would be the winner.

Irwin Stelzer is director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute and a columnist for the Sunday Times.

32 comments

Mike Parr's picture

Not sure why NS gave a neo-con room to speak. AlkaSeltzer usually talks bollocks and once again satisifes. Taking the Doctors example - so it's Ok for a Dr to work 80hrs? Mr S comes from the US - I don't care what they do there - & his opinion counts for nothing on this. One of the things not mentioned is the ability of "Brussels" to stand up to the bankers - a group of parasites long in need of reform. But that would not fit the neo-con agenda and thus is not mentioned. I have a subscription to NS, keep giving lickspittles like this space and it will not be renewed - take yer pick.

Boudicca's picture

"Ed Miliband could pull a trick by following Gordon Brown’s firm line on the EU’s attempts to centralise power. "
-------------------
I read this paragraph and nearly choked on my cornflakes. Gordon Brown was the man who denied the British people a Referendum on the Lisbon Constitutional Treaty, despite Labour's Manifesto Commitment that one would be held. It is no good claiming that the Treaty and the proposed Constitution it replaced are different - they are virtually the same, as Merket and others freely admitted.

Labour under Gordon Brown, gave away the British right of veto so that a cabal of foreign politicians and bureaucrats can now IMPOSE their demands on us - whether changes in our laws or demands for money - and we have to comply. At least, we have to until the British people see sense and stop voting for the Labour, CONservative and LibDim conspiracy which keeps us trapped in the EU.

We need a new Cromwell to sweep away the political elite who have sold out this country for a ride on the gravy train. The best we have is UKIP and Nigel Farage.

The next EU Parliament elections may well see UKIP win and the Lib/Lab/CONspiracy won't be able to claim then that the British people are happy with the status quo as regards the EU.

J Ceasar's picture

@Boudicca
"We need a new Cromwell to sweep away the political elite who have sold out this country for a ride on the gravy train."

Yes, yes, yes, yes .....

"Nigel Farage" ... oh god no, what an awful thought. You really know how to switch off a voter .

I'm confused and dont know whether to be nasty or a bigot. Perhaps I should create the 'nasty bigot' party if the Libdems dont get there first.

chris8hr's picture

You think if the UK were out of the EU, it would have absolute sovereignty? I hate to burst your bubble. Here is a partial list of reasons why the UK is not sovereign. The diplomatic influence of the US; China's creditor status; Russia on Gas. In world society, lets consider the rising influence of G20 nations. Middle Eastern oil reliance.

As for the EU not being democratic. This claim is the simple utopian tripe we hear from Daily Mail and Express readers, as if there could be some perfect democracy where we all vote and agree on everything all the time. The EU is democratic on the basis that it is legitimate enough to its constituents, who are our politicians. Indeed it is those who watch too much X-Factor who believe governance is about popularity.

Let me tell you how democracy works, kids. Politicians do not know the answers, but speak to speak to people who might. When you vote, you are choosing someone who can ask the right people for the right advice. If you think that democracy is about politicians reflecting your own petty observations about what you've read in the newspaper, you're misguided. Second rate politicians like Farage are just opinionated oiks who would not seek the best advice because they're so egotistical.

I'd rather be EU than UK anyway, just compare their foreign policies for instance. UK = Invade Afg/Iraq/Libya for unjust reasons. EU = fund civil society movements to facilitate progress and democratisation. Lets compare their structural domestic policies. UK = put loads of money into London, the richest area of the UK. EU = use structural funds to redevelop those cities in throes of deindustrialisation, e.g. Liverpool.

mikiboy's picture

The forthcoming referendum on AV is a disgraceful display of the mendacity of politicians. It is like voting on who gets to arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic when we should be deciding if it is not too late to lower the lifeboats. We were promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and we are now being fobbed off with this farcical waste of time and money. I intend to write EU VOTE NOW on my ballot paper and hope others who agree with this will do so too.

chris8hr: I am impressed with the degree of trust you place in our betters at Westminster.

jie4v7i14's picture

I did point out that David Cameron's achilles heel was the white cliffs of Dover mentality, but that, for some english closed-mind reason, got deleted by NS.

Bluddy Vera Lynn. Who is she really anyway, I ask you, really?

Lox's picture

Grow up, Obelisk. You think that anyone who dislikes the EU is a "ukipper troll"? You sap.

The EU reached it's zenith in terms of usefulness when it was no more than a free trade area. But it's now controlled by a self-serving and cynical bloc of mediocrities like Kinnock milking europeans for all they can get.

Mike Parr clearly has a problem with views that he disagrees with-don't you, precious? Life must be so troublesome for you, dear.

David Lindsay's picture

When John Major increased Britain's contribution to the EU Budget, he withdrew the Whip from half a dozen Conservative MPs who abstained. None voted against, and the abstainers represented about one quarter of the 22 who had voted against Maastricht (as one of them had not done). Across the floor, there was a Labour three-line whip to abstain. No one defied that and voted in favour, but there were 44 Labour votes against, one third of the number that, in voting against Maastricht, had outnumbered Conservative opponents by three to one even though there was a Conservative overall majority at the time.

So believe one word of the Tory tough talk when anything comes of it, and not a moment before. Following on from the anti-Maastricht veteran Peter Hain's accurate statement on Question Time that EU competition law was a threat to the NHS, this is Ed Miliband's chance to impose a three-line whip against any increase, thus ridding himself once and for all of any Eurocrazy Blairite rump, although a series of breaks with them in the division lobbies, on a range of issues, would be both more fun and more use.

And thus opening up the debate on restoring the supremacy of British over EU law, on using that to restore the United Kingdom's historic fishing rights in accordance with international law, on requiring all EU legislation to pass through both Houses as if it had originated in one or other of them, on requiring British Ministers to adopt the show-stopping Empty Chair Policy until the Council of Ministers met in public and published an Official Report akin to Hansard, on disapplying any legislation passed by the European Parliament unless passed by the majority of those MEPs certified as politically acceptable by one or more seat-taking MPs, and on the disapplication of any ruling of the ECJ, or of the ECHR, or of the "Supreme Court" unless ratified by a resolution of the House of Commons.

Money matters, but it has never been the main issue. So, will Cameron take these opportunities to denounce that silly, half-educated woman who thought it was, and who therefore banged on about her rebate but merrily signed the Single European Act, the source of the anti-NHS competition law of which she would have approved so strongly? Will Ed Miliband give him the opportunity to do so?

Vercingetorix's picture

I don't disagree with Stezler's analysis of the inexorable leeching of sovereignty to the EU and the bear traps that lie ahead for the UK.

But he is delusional if he thinks Miliband is seriously going to wrap himself in a purple UKIP toga. His union paymasters are almost entirely pro-EU. And Brown is hardly a good example of someone who stuck it to the EU - he was the one who welched on giving us a referendum on Lisbon!

There is undoubtedly a rich seam of voters to be mined by one of the big two taking an anti-EU line but neither of them dare do it. It is too dangerous and explosive.

bubbles15's picture

chris8hr : a truly terrifying response. Not only are you certifiable but such naivety is disasterous for the economy.

The EU is not about democracy - it is, in fact, pursuing the opposite. A single socialist super state. It has no interest in improving human life, quality or standards, it is driving toward the opposite, a lowest common demoninator of equal misery except for the elite rich rulers on our money. We've seen the beginnings of this arrogant unelected monster destroying the country already.

Liverpool is crushed because of massive levels of taxation preventing the growth of jobs. That's because the central government refuses to act appropriately and throw away the garbage of the EU, reduce local taxes and allow business to grow.

We're in Libya to control the oil. Nothing else. We need to do so for economic reasons. Either your an idiot or you work for the EU. Which is the same thing. Please, grow up. This country is being crippled by the edifice that is the European Union, not improved by it.

As for 'let me tell you how democracy works' rant is wrong as well. That's not democracy, that's administration. The two are completely different. Democracy is the people ruling themselves through an elected, and removable government. What you're advocating is unelected administration ruling without public support. That's the EU.

What Britain needs is democracy, not the EU. I ask you to 'grow up'.

Latest tweets