Opinion

Hugo Dixon

The EU speech Cameron should make

By Hugo Dixon
January 7, 2013

David Cameron is planning a keynote speech on Britain’s relationship with the EU later this month. Here is what the UK prime minister should say.
 
 The euro crisis is forcing euro zone nations to rethink how they wish to run their currency union. It is also forcing European Union countries that don’t use the single currency, such as Britain, to rethink their relationship with Europe.

We have three main options: quit the EU; move to the edge as the euro zone pushes towards closer union; and seek to stay at the heart of Europe and influence its development in a way that promotes our interests.

There are members of my own Conservative party who would like Britain to quit. There are others who would like us to move to the periphery. But I am determined to make sure that we stay at the centre.

Let me deal, first, with the argument that Britain’s interests would be enhanced if we were no longer in the EU. Being a member costs us money, partly to subsidise anti-competitive practices such as the Common Agricultural Policy; it also requires us to follow a mass of rules, some of which inhibit our competitiveness. But half our trade is with the rest of the EU. It would be madness to cut ourselves off from a rich single market of 500 million people.

Of course, leaving the EU would not automatically mean that we would lose access to the single market. Switzerland and Norway are part of the same free trade zone without being EU members. But the quid pro quo is that they still have to follow the rules of the single market. It is not in our interest to put ourselves in the same position – where we have to do what we are told without any say in drafting those rules. Look at the deal that we negotiated before Christmas to ensure our banks are not discriminated against. We wouldn’t have been in a position to cut such a deal if we hadn’t been at the top table.

What then about retreating to the periphery? This might seem an attractive way of having our cake and eating it. After all, as a response to the euro crisis, the euro zone is considering plans to add fiscal and political union to monetary union. This will involve treaty changes which everybody, including Britain, would have to approve. We could use our leverage to negotiate the repatriation of certain powers from Brussels to London – for example over social policy – and so improve our competitiveness.

I don’t exclude the possibility of repatriating powers where matters would be better decided at a national rather than supranational level. However, I am queasy about making a push for opt-outs the main focus of our policy not just because it’ll be hard to secure them. Even if we are successful, the UK would move to the outer tier of Europe. A core principle of British foreign policy for centuries has been that we should not allow continental Europe to form a bloc against us. That’s why we fought the Napoleonic Wars and two world wars.

My finance minister has talked about the “remorseless logic” of banking and fiscal union to complement the euro zone’s monetary union. But the more I think about this, the more I am convinced that greater integration among euro zone countries is neither in our interests (as it would reduce our influence) nor theirs (as it would lead to increased centralisation and bureaucracy).

There is a push for greater union across the English Channel. But there’s also resistance. The Germans don’t want to pay for everybody else’s bills; while everybody else doesn’t want to be bossed around by Berlin. Britain is not the only country with eurosceptics. At last month’s summit, indeed, nothing was agreed on this greater integration plan apart from a diluted accord to have a common bank supervisor.

How then will the euro zone survive and thrive if it doesn’t integrate? My answer is that it has to become more competitive otherwise economic activity will be sucked away to China, India and the like. Europe’s labour markets have to become more flexible; goods and services markets have to be fully open to competition; and government spending and taxation must be reined in.

This “remorseless logic” is pretty much the recipe being forced on Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland as they try to escape the crisis – with the one important exception that taxes are rising because of their fiscal problems. Even socialist France is being pushed in the same direction.

Such a free market agenda is precisely what Britain has been advocating for decades. This is a particularly opportune moment for us to press our case. That is why I advocate the third option: staying at the heart of Europe.

If we sit at the top table, we can advocate a more competitive single market, where the remaining barriers to trade are torn down. We can press for more trade agreements with other economic blocs such as America. We can defend our vital interests in areas such as financial services. We can argue for dismantling the regulations that tie us in knots and the subsidy programmes that waste money. And, yes, we can work to repatriate some powers – not just to London but to other national capitals. That is how we should engage with Europe.

Comments
5 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Stay independent in some form or being dragged into the abyss, you mean ?

Posted by Willvp | Report as abusive
 

The same rules that apply to UK (out of the Euro) apply to Germany (in Euro) or Sweden (out of the Euro). Yet both countries are far more competitive than UK and trade much more with India, Brazil or China.
Blame the EU brigade (or in your case partially) is made of deranged and delusional Tories that believe that once Free of EU the UK will conquer world markets with their world class products and servcies.
I am sure the Canadians and Aussies (Commonwealth/ex-Empire) are dying to start buying Rovers (instead of VW, Toyota). Watch out SAMSUNG, GE, BOSCH – here comes Lucas with their cutting edge fridges!!!
The World is dying to watch Hollyoaks and West End!!! Take that Hollywood!!!
Let’s just hope that more Oil and Gas is found in North Sea – otherwise UK will be back in the 70s but with better food and internet

Posted by white_wolfe | Report as abusive
 

A well argued case. But it would take a real leader with real balls to put this before the country.

Cameron ain’t it. He won’t even put it before his cabinet. Never mind his party.

Posted by Dafydd | Report as abusive
 

Britain shares the anti-Americanism that has been so popular in Europe during the post-WWII period, an anti-Americanism that is largely based on fiction. But it is undeniable that Britain has consistently done much better with the United States than it has done with continental Europe.

Posted by Bob9999 | Report as abusive
 

If the EU was only about trade then there would be no real reason for the Union. Trade agreements and a functioning International Trade Court would keep a level playing field (eventually). And unless there is a complete fiscal union I do not believe that the benefits of a single currency outweigh its weaknesses.

However, the EU project is not just an economic union. It was a plan with a key objective of integration as a means of stopping the seemingly endless history of european conflict. If that objective is paramount, then of course there will need to be significant compromises of national interest by all parties.

If one considers the EU project as an alternative to european countries at war with each other, then the battles are now being fought in Brussels and it would be very unwise for Britain to leave that theatre.

Posted by RickPeters10 | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/