Tony Blair tried. Step by step, the United Kingdom is constructing for itself a European Union that matches its vision and wishes. Thanks to opt-outs, it is sitting on the sidelines of a growing number of Community rules and achievements. When he came to power, Tony Blair tried to check this trend, firstly by joining up to social provisions which his country had not initially subscribed to, then by announcing a referendum on the UK's joining the euro and, thirdly, by joining all his colleagues in signing the draft Constitutional Treaty as it had been drawn up in 2004 (and I could give further examples). All his efforts failed, however, against the reluctance of the majority of his country's political forces and the majority of the population, and the determined, tenacious and sometimes untruthful hostility of virtually all the British press. Tony Blair himself summed up the battle lost in a single sentence, when he said that a British Prime Minister has only two ways open to him: either he puts his country at the heart of Europe, and he loses national support, or he gives up on that, and loses all power and influence in Europe.
On the new European Treaty, the United Kingdom has once again chosen the latter way. Tony Blair drew his “red lines” which his country would not cross, and he got the exemptions he wanted. He was aware that he could not ask the other member states to suddenly give up on the binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on majority decisions on police and legal cooperation, on some progress on a common foreign policy and on majority voting on some tax and social measures. So he asked for his country to be allowed to sit on the sidelines of this progress, and he got it. His conduct was impeccable, both towards the other member states (he did not ask them to give up on their plans, simply to accept that his country would not be fully involved) and towards the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown (to whom he could not leave an inheritance of obligations which he rejects). In London, he is being blamed for having made too many concessions and there are calls for a referendum on the new treaty (in the hope of scuppering it for everyone, perhaps?).
The “two speeds” exist already. These developments merely confirm what was already known: the United Kingdom does not share the aims of integration which are the key points in the construction of Europe. We know all that the world owes this country in terms of freedom, citizens' rights, defining and applying democratic principles. Today still, several continental countries (not to mention in the rest of the world) could learn a great deal from the British, for example on human rights and the role of the Opposition. The choices London made on Europe are perfectly legal and honourable, whether they be on the priority given to links with the countries of the Commonwealth, to the alliance with the United States to globalisation rather than European identity, and so on. But they are not in line with the ambitions of most of the other countries. It has been thus since the beginning. The UK's involvement in the construction of a united Europe is a long story of equivocation and misunderstandings. There have always been British political figures who supported integration, and there still are, people like the MEPs Andrew Duff, Richard Corbett and Christopher Beazley. But they are overwhelmed by the eurosceptics.
What is new is that the pro-Europeans in the other member states are becoming aware of the situation. The EP rapporteur on the new European Treaty Jo Leinen has just said that, given the number of opt-outs, “we already have a two-speed Europe”.
The gap will widen. The gap will get wider, because there will be more and more “enhanced cooperation”, and, even before the new treaty comes into effect, the EU has to tackle a number of major issues where there are diverging views. To mention but four: a) strengthening of the euro area, involving the rate of exchange of the euro, monetary relations with third countries, coordination of budgetary and tax policies among the member states in the euro zone; b) the debate on the idea of “Community preference”; c) the future of European agriculture and the policy to be followed in this sector; d) the introduction of rules and checks in the financial sector. The United Kingdom will not be involved in the first, and could very well find itself at odds with most continental countries on the others.
Then the new clause allowing countries to secede from the EU could become very topical.
(F.R.)