Letter to the Editor: Treaty Time; British and EU interests demand an agreement is reached this week

The current debate over the EU Amending Treaty has brought the issue of Europe back to the centre of the political agenda. Since mid-2005, when the Constitutional Treaty was voted down in France and the Netherlands, the “Europe question” has been a less touchy and controversial subject in UK discourse than usual. Without a single 'integrationist' measure, like the euro or the Constitution to get excited about, both the Europhile and Eurosceptics camps have had to recalibrate their energies. As Europe Minister, Geoff Hoon, often says 'the heat has gone out of the debate'.

The change in the climate has allowed the pro-European movement in the UK to remobilize and to gather support in various constituencies, particularly the business community. The British business community is broadly-speaking satisfied with the way the EU is developing. The single market covers 27 member states and almost 500 million consumers. Businesses in the UK have benefited hugely from the influx of migrant labour caused by the enlargement of the EU. Not only business but also the trade unions have been positive about the migrant labour and enlargement. The UK has taken the lead on a range of important issues, such as better regulation and climate change. The EU’s approach and policies, under the shrewd leadership of Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, have won it many admirers and supporters in Europe.

Now that the German presidency of the EU has put the Treaty back on the agenda, Europe is back in the minds of politicians, business leaders and the electorate. Since any deal would have to be agreed by all the member states, the views of each country are important. There are two broad camps: the 'maximalists', most of the member states, now totalling 16, who ratified the Constitution, and the 'minimalists' including the UK, Czech Republic and Poland, who have different concerns. The UK itself favours an amending Treaty rather than a Constitutional one proposed by Giscard d'Estaing and his colleagues in 2002.

So what would the Treaty do? Many of the measures designed to improve decision-making are common-sense. Ending the rotating Presidency of the European Council every 6 months and establishing a non-executive permanent President would provide the EU with greater continuity. It is particularly challenging, under the present system, for some of the smaller countries to lead the agenda of the entire EU for 6 months. Second, sending two EU officials to foreign affairs meetings is bad for coordination. Merging these posts into one does not mean a single EU foreign policy but greater coordination when it comes to Europe-wide policies on relations with the likes of Russia, Iran and the Sudan.

Furthermore, the introduction of double majority voting within the European Council (55% of Member States and 65% of European population) would rectify the imbalance against larger member states created at Nice in 2001. As a result, the UK’s voting weight would increase by 45%. It is true that the voting change would also require a minimum of four countries rather than three to block EU proposals, so the UK would have to work harder to gain a blocking minority. Yet, with the Nordic countries and many eastern European states sharing similar instincts to the UK on many major policy issues, we should be confident of doing so. Another very positive measure likely to appear in a new Treaty is the proposal to increase the power of national Parliaments.

But not everything is so straightforward. There are some thorny areas for the UK and for the business community including the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the extension of majority voting to new policy areas. Yet on the latter, the UK has sometimes found itself frustrated in its desire to reach agreement on justice and home affairs in the EU and moves to QMV will make agreement on such important legislation more feasible.

As Tony Blair embarks on his final and one of his most important European summits, he should be mindful of the consequences of blocking a Treaty for the UK. It would make it impossible to further enlarge the EU, and diminish the UK’s influence over crucial upcoming debates, such as the budget and CAP review in 2008-09. Moreover, failure to reach an agreement would hamper the EU’s capacity to address its external challenges, such as climate change, conflict in the Middle East, development in Africa and relations with Russia. An agreement will be good news not only for the EU but also for the UK and the new government of Gordon Brown.

Roland Rudd (Chairman, Business for New Europe)