BNE Blog

The outlook for UK European policy at the year’s end: long winter ahead or chance of an early spring?

By Phillip Souta

By Dr Daniel Furby

The final months of 2011 were intemperate ones for UK European policy. The government’s victory over Conservative Eurosceptic MPs in the House of Commons proved fleeting; October’s motion on whether to hold a referendum on continued EU membership may have been defeated, but the true measure of its impact can be understood best in light of the December European Council.

Some have argued that there was little justification for a negotiating position whereby the UK sought quid pro quos - including the right to exempt Britain from some EU financial regulations – for something which perhaps should never really have been ours to grant: the reopening of the Lisbon Treaty to introduce new rules for fiscal governance within the eurozone. Given that Britain would have experienced little difficulty in exempting itself from these rules, it may have been better (for the UK and eurozone alike) to permit treaty change and thus show solidarity with allies at a time of deepening crisis. The recent snows in northwest Europe are in keeping with the cold winds currently blowing through UK-European relations.

Photo: Telegraph

The principal question for 2012 is whether these inclement conditions will persist. Will the separation between Britain and the EU mainstream become entrenched, or will Downing Street and Whitehall determine upon a strategy to weather the current blizzard and avoid the dangers confronting the UK’s present and future relationship with Europe? The outlook is at best a mixed one.

The wintry conditions are making their mark closest to home. A sibling schism has erupted between Britain and France over the hitherto obscure subject national of credit ratings. The poor parlance began with French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s likening of Cameron to an ‘obstinate kid’ (a reference to the prime minister’s actions at the December summit) and was carried on by the unflattering remarks of the French Finance Minister, Francois Baroin, and central bank governor, Christian Noyer, on the comparative health of the British economy. The transparent effort to deter, or at least defer, a credit rating downgrade for France provoked considerable irritation in Britain, up to and including the Europhile Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg.

As apt as the proverb about stones and glass houses may seem, the French could also point out that the first pebble was directed from the other side of La Manche. George Osborne’s comments on the financial difficulties facing continental governments – ‘You are not interviewing a European finance minister who is currently terrified that he can’t sell the country’s debts’ – which included a specific reference to France, were bound to rankle with Paris and may in part explain Baroin’s decision to wade in to this particular row. Yet the significance of all this for the UK’s wider relationship with Europe is slight. Anglo-French agitation is very old climatic phenomenon, and the present spat will quickly be forgotten – a localised storm, readily contained within the idiomatic English teacup, or perhaps more fittingly at the festive season, a French verre à cognac.

More troubling, perhaps, is the atmosphere in sections of a different French-speaking capital: Brussels. At the European Parliament (EP), in particular, the week following the December European Council gave rise to some striking signals of disaffection with the UK government. Most dramatic was Joseph Daul, the chair of the centre right European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political grouping in the EP, who suggested that MEPs might be inclined to riposte Cameron’s ‘veto’ by questioning the need for the British budgetary rebate. It is unclear whether Daul’s statement is reflective of currents of opinion within his native France more than it is of attitudes within the EPP, but there should be no doubt about the existence of a more general frustration with British awkwardness within the EP.

Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE), which includes British Liberal Democrats, demonstrated his irritation by refusing to speak English during the plenary session in Strasbourg. As tempers cool, it seems unlikely that this frustration will actually translate into EP decisions directed against Britain, but a greater danger lies in the possibility that British MEPs, such as those within the ALDE, will find that they carry less influence within their respective political groupings and are therefore less able to advance and defend British interests and perspectives. Given that the Parliament now enjoys legislative equality with the Council, the situation within the EP certainly constitutes another frosty feature on Britain’s European horizon.

Yet the most critical factor in forecasting the probability of a long winter for UK-European relations is not what has happened, but what is still to be done. The greatest hazard confronting UK European policy in the first months of 2011 is its exclusion from the new intergovernmental treaty. Plenty remains unclear about the content and coverage of the new treaty, but should it lead to a further formal distinction between Britain and other EU member states, exacerbating the existing division between eurozone ‘ins’ and ‘outs’, the danger is that Britain’s current troubles will get worse. In particular, should the compact pave the way for intensified discussions between eurozone (and other EU) members on economic and financial affairs, and Britain remains absent, London’s ability to shape future EU policies in these areas could be badly compromised.

There is every reason for the UK to try and regain momentum lost with its EU partners after the December Council meeting, up to and including joining the prospective intergovernmental treaty (the UK currently holds observer status in the negotiations). This does not mean that Britain would have to accept the new fiscal rules introduced, but it would minimise the danger that the UK might be excluded from future talks on questions of fundamental significance to British interests: the City of London and the single market. Should the UK embark upon a genuine process of re-engagement with EU partners, there may yet be hope that 2012 will bring an early spring.

There are firm grounds for a more optimistic outlook: the dark clouds currently residing over the UK’s relationship with Paris and the European Parliament begin to dissipate as the geographic focus shifts eastwards. The recent meeting between British Foreign Secretary William Hague and the German Federal Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, in addition to Angela Merkel’s comments about Britain remaining an important partner within the EU, afford ample evidence that Berlin is anxious to avoid a UK drift to the margins. On the possibility that Britain might still participate in the fiscal compact, Westerwelle was clear: ‘with goodwill it is doable’. Whether it is done will depend primarily upon the government’s readiness to soften the stance taken on the EU Treaty.

For the moment it is tricky to be certain where things will lead, the foreign secretary is holding firm to Britain’s request for countervailing concessions. The explanation for why other EU member states should go to such lengths to deter London from isolating itself remains elusive, and despite Business Secretary Vince Cable’s recent equivocation about the consequences for Britain of the December Council, the coalition government should be in doubt where the balance of British advantage lies; participation in the intergovernmental treaty – with or without concessions to the City of London – easily trumps the continuation of the status quo.

That Britain’s constructive participation in the EU is welcomed in many parts of Europe is also clear from statements such as those of Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski during his Berlin speechin November, in which he highlighted the many positive contributions Britain has made to the development of the European Union. A similar sadness at UK Euroscepticism was evident in Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt’s Twitter comment immediately after the December Council:‘Worried that Britain is starting to drift away from Europe in a serious way. To where? In a strong alliance with Hungary…’. From the Netherlands to parts of central Europe (for a fascinating analysis on the latter theme, see the ‘The UK-EU split’ by Thomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform) a UK retreat to the margins is viewed with concern.

Forecasting the future of UK-European relations is an inherently hazardous activity, and the present political map reveals a mixture of bleak and brighter elements. There is a genuine desire in many parts of the continent to see Britain re-engage with its partners and retake its seat at the negotiating table. The costs to Britain of joining the prospective intergovernmental treaty are negligible or non-existent. It would inevitably entail a partial loss of face domestically, but this should be more than offset by the knowledge that the government would be acting in the country’s long-term interest. If the UK fails to walk against the winds of national Euroscepticism now, it may simply be blown along with them in the future, and the wintry conditions which currently confront UK European policy will only grow harsher.

EU Summit Outcome – Britain isolated, eurozone under threat

By Phillip Souta

It is a matter of enormous regret that we find ourselves in a minority of one following the EU summit this week.

The biggest question for British strategy is, why did we need this opt out and what were we trying to protect?  Common rules for the Single Market have been adopted by Qualified Majority since Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act in 1986.

In the past, the UK has rarely been outvoted on issues relating to financial services because we have been able to build alliances.  The risk is that we have so alienated countries by vetoing treaty change that those who voted with us in the past will not be inclined to vote with us in the future.

One of the biggest issues is the possibility of a Financial Transactions Tax but that is something that the UK can veto at the EU level in any event, as it requires unanimity.  It is therefore totally unclear why we needed such a protocol.

The Eurozone

Ultimately, by preventing the eurozone from using EU institutions to oversee their agreement on limiting debt, the UK has put the eurozone in danger and therefore British jobs and our wider economy at risk.  France and Germany wanted the European Commission and the European Court of Justice to oversee the “fiscal pact” they agreed, to provide credible, clear enforcement.

Without that, this deal will be rejected by the markets.  The eurozone+ grouping is now forced to create new institutions outside the EU which will have no track record – this process will take months, and in the mean time, the markets will push Spanish, Italian and other peripheral state bond yields to the point that Italy, for example, may have to default.

The threat to the existence of the eurozone therefore cannot be underestimated.  The consequences of a eurozone collapse would be catastrophic for the EU, and for Britain.  By vetoing this treaty change, we have made it more, not less likely that the crisis continues.  To have lost sight of the fact that supporting the eurozone should be the UK’s first priority is likely to be seen in the future as having been a huge strategic error.

Stringent rules needed to guarantee single currency’s future stability

By Phillip Souta

By Tom Thatcher

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy (Photo: Courtesy of BBC)

 

As Eurozone leaders prepare for the eighth summit this year on the future of the euro, a major fault line on the road to fiscal union has opened up once again between France and Germany, over whether sanctions should be automatic (the German position), or politically enforced (the French one).

Germany is Europe’s economic powerhouse and the largest net contributor to the EU’s bailout fund, the EFSF. Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly made clear her opposition to any sort of fiscal union, but now that it looks like the only possible option for the euro is to survive, has argued that strict rules for economic governance would need to be enshrined into EU law before Germany could engage with the process any further.

This would mean new treaties, with provisions for punishing members failing to fulfil their obligations (for example, through taking on debt they subsequently cannot service) with automatic sanctions.

Unfortunately for Europe, the EU’s second biggest economy – France – finds itself on the other side of the divide, with Nicolas Sarkozy’s government espousing a model of intergovernmentalism allowing for malleable rules when it comes to paying down common debt.

As ever with the Eurozone, the debate is about more than just economics; it is being played out against a backdrop of competing political philosophies grounded in the continent’s history of internal strife and conflict.

German insistence on the independence of governance structures is rooted in its desire to avoid the hyperinflation which plagued the Weimar Republic, and ultimately led to the country’s slide towards catastrophe in the 1930s.

France’s failure to acquiesce with Germany’s exacting standards has less to do with ensuring the single currency’s future stability and much more to do with maintaining Gallic prestige – and exceptionalism – in a German-dominated Europe with Nicolas Sarkozy playing the role of a latter-day Charles de Gaulle.

Aside from such considerations, however, it is worth considering exactly what model will work best for the Eurozone if it is to regain its role as the world’s alternative reserve currency.

It would be naïve to think that any Eurozone member state will rigidly enforce the doctrine of living within one’s means if there are no punitive measures for defaulters. As reckless borrowing during the single currency’s first decade has shown, low interest rates mean cheap money, and cheap money means high borrowing, even if such policies make little economic sense in the long term (as they didn’t for Greece, Spain and Portugal).

Although cheap money is hardly a problem for the continent at present, borrowing could well spiral out of control in the coming years, as economic slowdown really bites and Europe’s ageing demographic really starts to have an impact.

Nor is any member state above such reckless practices – it is an oft-quoted fact that Germany, Europe’s paragon of economic virtue, was the first to break the rules on Europe’s ‘Stability and Growth Pact’ by going beyond the budget ceiling of 3 per cent of GDP.

It is clear that stringent guidelines, rigidly enforced, are therefore essential to make sure that the single currency is never again brought to the brink of collapse.

Of course, accepting the need for such a requirement goes hand in hand with deciding just how enforcement would work. Without proper implementation, a European fiscal rulebook would simply not be fit for purpose.

In this sense at least, Eurozone countries are fortunate. Institutions capable of ensuring compliance already exist at the EU-27 level, namely the Commission and the ECJ. Combined, these two institutions would be able to guarantee the stability of the single currency in years to come but only if they are given the proper powers to do so.

This prospect has been met with a less than enthusiastic response in certain quarters, not least because it would mean nationals from non-Eurozone countries having a say on Europe’s single currency – something of an anathema, when those Euro-outs include several large countries, all of whom have quotas of commissioners and European Parliament members. How can it be fair that Britain, for example, gets to have a say on the Euro when it is not prepared to sign up to it?

Such questioning, while legitimate, is misguided.

Many of the Euro-out states have plans to join the single currency in the near future, including large regional powers such as Poland. To leave them out of the decision making process at this stage would not only be grossly unfair, but may isolate many of them – after all, they agreed to sign up to a particular type of euro when they acceded to the Union in 2004 and it was not one that involved such harsh sanctions.

At the same time, whilst it may be unpalatable, it makes sense to let those without definite plans to join to remain part of the decision-making process, not only because it will encourage them to join in the future but because it is in keeping with the fundamental ideal underpinning the euro – it is Europe’s currency, and the entire continent should help to make it a success.

Both of these changes will require leaps into the unknown for Europe’s political and economic leaders. But as they gaze over the precipice, they may just decide to take the risk.

Press Release – The eurozone needs automatic sanctions

By Phillip Souta

The UK should support Germany in its push for automatic eurozone sanctions.

At the beginning of the latest make-or-break week for the eurozone, the biggest political fault line is between France and Germany on how to enforce greater fiscal discipline in the eurozone.  President Sarkozy wants ‘political control’; Chancellor Merkel wants automatic enforcement by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.

Phillip Souta, Director of BNE, said, “For the plan to be credible, Mrs. Merkel must have her way on common rules for all the eurozone’s members.  France can only protect its ‘triple A’ credit rating – and save the tens of billions of euros that a downgrade would mean for its debt interest payments – by giving up its exceptionalist position.”

He went on to say, “It looks likely that Germany will not stop the European Central Bank from standing behind the euro if Mario Draghi so chooses, and that it will ultimately endorse some form of eurobond, however, the price it rightly demands is automatic sanctions enforced by the Commission and the ECJ.”

Phillip Souta concluded, “We are starting to see the final shape of the euro emerge.  Mrs. Merkel wants the currency to be managed within the institutions of the EU27; Mr. Sarkozy within the intergovernmental 17.  The UK has sensibly dropped talk of demanding powers back; now the Prime Minister should stand behind the Commission and the German Chancellor as they push for a rules-based solution to the crisis with the institutions of the wider EU27.”

 

Notes to Editors

- Business for New Europe is a coalition of pro European British business leaders who articulate a positive case for reform in Europe.  We comment on European issues that have an impact on the UK.  For a list of our members, please follow this link http://www.bnegroup.org/about/people

- For media enquiries, please contact Paul O’Hagan on paul.ohagan@bnegroup.org  or contact +44 (0)7944 572 351.  Phillip Souta can be contacted directly on +44 (0)78 8788 6437.

 

You have successfully signed up to the Business for New Europe newsletter.

close


* Required fields