Unavoidable. The question won't go away. To what extent is the United Kingdom still part of Europe? Is it planning to participate in the new developments and changes being considered or aimed at? In the past, the British made a great effort to join the European club, despite being refused entry by General de Gaulle not once, but twice. Much of the country's population and politicians wanted their country to join back then. As journalists, we came to know leading figures who dedicated themselves to fighting might and main to make a success of the UK joining the European project. Figures of this calibre still exist, as I explain below. Over time, however, various important aspects of the European project were challenged, whether it be the funding of the common agricultural policy or management of regional policy, and Margaret Thatcher even managed to win a hefty rebate of the UK's contribution to the EU budget. The new EU Financial Perspectives for 2014-2020 include the phasing out of this special treatment and this is likely to lead to blood on the carpet. But this is not the crucial question. It is right and proper for member states not to agree on absolutely everything, and the EU institutions are there to discuss such disagreements, seek compromise solutions, manage common policies and keep the EU in good running order.
Yet things are different when it comes to the UK because not only is it not involved in any of the European project's new developments, but it has no intention of ever being so, whether it be the eurozone, the Schengen area, the common foreign policy or the common defence policy. These are innovative aspects of the integration process without which Europe would have no real importance or weight in the world. Not only does the UK not participate in them, but it has already said that it will be steering well clear of them. Here are some of the important areas from which the UK abstains:
1. Monetary contradiction. The situation is very clear when it comes to the euro: the United Kingdom is sticking with pounds sterling and managing its own monetary policy, which often contradicts good management of the euro. This is not a question of personal bias; Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank, himself explains: “The eurozone is a fragile structure and comes under attack from Anglo-Saxon financial circles.” Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was more explicit and damning in his own comments about the contradictions between management of the euro and the City of London's monetary policy. The British government cannot even attend talks about management of the euro and despite making a degree of effort, they are complete outsiders when it comes to the euro.
2. An absence that doesn't make sense. The Schengen area is seen by everyone as a great success, despite recent hiccoughs. The removal of border controls in Europe is seen by public opinion as a real sign of the existence of a united Europe. People travelling around the Schengen area often don't even notice when they cross a border into another member state. Joining the Schengen area is a key aspiration of everyone living in the countries bordering on Europe. A huge controversy arose when sporadic border controls were reintroduced by the French at the Franco-Italian border recently, and there are also problems about various controls carried out by Denmark.
As far as the UK is concerned, things are simple - it is not part of the Schengen area and has no intention of joining.
3. Refusal to countenance a pooling of European defence. On foreign policy and defence policy issues, the United Kingdom is quite happy to go along with intergovernmental cooperation, as long as it decides on this for itself on a case-by-case basis (like the bombing of Libya), but it rejects any type of EU cooperation process. When in the summer (July 2011), the EU brought up the idea again of creating a permanent headquarters for EU security operations, the British foreign minister said: “We veto it today, we will veto it in the future. This is a decision we will not go back on.” (See EUROPE 10421of 19 July 2011).
William Hague added that an EU headquarters would duplicate the work of NATO structures and permanently separate European plans from those of NATO. He says that it is at SHAPE in Mons (Belgium) that European plans should be drawn up. The UK takes the same arms-length approach when it comes to funding for the European Defence Agency.
This goes well beyond hypothetical, military considerations as such, and severely hampers (whether directly or indirectly) attempts to introduce a common European foreign policy.
The work and views of the European Parliament
The European Parliament keeps close tabs on this situation and regularly publishes its views. To pick one document, almost at random, there is a report by Roberto Gualtieri calling for a credible European defence policy and demanding greater interdependence among member states, along with mutual trust and solidarity (see EUROPE 10379). The report says the European Council should identify common strategic interests and the EU's political objectives, and prepare a foreign policy that includes political dialogue with the EP and greater cooperation with national parliaments. This should go hand-in-hand with a genuine European defence market to provide economies of scale and avoid wasting money on “exaggeratedly high prices for European defence equipment”. The report talks about “good cooperation” with NATO, but focuses on cooperation when the EU and NATO “are involved in the same theatres of operation”.
Hence there is a huge gap between the views of the European Parliament, which is probably over-ambitious at the moment, and those of London. This was to be expected and it is no accident that the Lisbon Treaty allows member states that wish to make progress in this area to press ahead among themselves. The EU criticises the fact that this area of the Lisbon Treaty has not been developed, which would no doubt further aggravate the divisions between the United Kingdom and most of the other member states.
Inevitable separation or hobbling along together?
Changes are in the air. Yesterday's newsletter reported on views expressed by leading British MEP Andrew Duff, who has long fought to expand the European project. He said that a degree of separation between the UK and the EU was “inevitable” and called for changes to the Lisbon Treaty to set up an “intermediate category of member state”. One must never forget that even in the United Kingdom there are leading figures who want their country to take a full, enthusiastic part in Europe. There is also Graham Watson, who has written a book which will soon be reviewed in our European Library series.
As we reported in yesterday's newsletter, the chair of the EPP Group at the European Parliament, Joseph Daul, said at a press conference that “countries that want to leave the united Europe can do so by virtue of Article 10 of the Lisbon Treaty, and countries that do not like being in the EU27 or do not like the Community method are free to leave”, explaining that no changes to the treaty were needed for that.
I am certainly not asking the United Kingdom to leave Europe, but it is nonetheless true that the British are not involved in a single one of the crucial EU developments currently under way.
(F.R./transl.fl)