The British want to choose for themselves. The British government considers that it is over-run by Europe - too many costs, too much red tape and too much interference. And it wants to radically alter its participation in Europe, yet not to leave it. I wrote about David Cameron's attitude two days ago (see EUROPE 10705) and said I would come back to this because his position not only determines the European future of his country, but also impacts on the development of the EU as a whole.
It should not be forgotten that the UK had already dissociated itself from the fiscal compact at the end of last year, making legal acrobatics necessary so that this text could be approved by the EU in spite of the lack of unanimity. London is currently going further and asking, in practice, for the option of choosing for itself which aspects of Community construction it wants to take part in - the UK would thus become a member country with variable geometry.
If such a principle is allowed, other member states could follow the British example and the result would be not a two speed Europe but a several speed one!
Return to intergovernmental cooperation? The British formula is obviously unacceptable for those who defend a single and compact Europe which evolves and takes shape as a whole. Jean Guy Giraud, the head of the Union of European Federalists in France, considers that the result of the British strategy would be that, in practice, any member state would choose the aspects of the EU that suit it. We would end up, in his opinion, with a Europe à la carte leading to “the disintegration of the acquis communautaire concept and the return to intergovernmental cooperation”. According to Mr Giraud the opposite is needed - to relaunch the “original, global and common project for the Union” by means of a constituent Convention that would propose a revision of the treaties or a new constitution-Treaty. He observes that this reform could come into force even if a small minority of member states was opposed to it, and that the European Parliament could take the initiative for this project on the basis of Article 48 (§2) of the Treaty.
However solid Mr Giraud's analysis, it should not be forgotten that: (1) a two speed Europe is already a reality anyway; (2) the member states which do not support the relaunch and strengthening of integration are not a small minority, but a considerable number. These two observations make me doubt the possibility of realising the “Giraud programme”.
Radical impact on future spending. As predicted, the first already-noted clashes concern the future spending of the EU. Right from the beginning Mr Cameron has targeted the negotiations on the 2014-2020 financial perspectives, defining the European Commission's demands as “scandalous” and saying that he will play his right to veto card. Faced with the €1,000 billion proposed by the Commission, Mr Cameron has stated that he considers the sum of €800 billion to be reasonable - it would be absurd for the EU to increase its spending while the member states must reduce theirs. As to the use of these future billions, the divergences concern not only the UK, but all the member states - the priorities of the “net contributor” countries differ from those of the beneficiary countries, CAP spending is a priority for some but much less so for others, and so on. The British position is certainly particular though - the UK benefits from a special rebate that it pulled off at the time of Mrs Thatcher and this is a situation which, in the view of several governments, should disappear. Mrs Merkel has said it explicitly. The battle will be tough.
Even the free movement of workers… It is evident that, in Mr Cameron's opinion, his country will not finance common policies in which it would no longer take part. In this context, fundamental aspects of the European reality would come into question. Mr Cameron has talked about the free movement of workers, saying that he intends to strengthen controls on visas which allow nationals from other member states to work on British soil. According to the data that he quotes, workers originating from other member states apparently occupy 50% or 60 % of the available jobs in some sectors, while local unemployment is considerable.
Less talkative. This is why and how the British intentions influence the future of European construction - without forgetting that the City is at the origin of the immeasurable difficulties for the eurozone. But on this subject, David Cameron is less talkative.
(FR/transl.fl)