• Home
• /
• Opinion

Britain strains at the leash in EU Club

The immediate provocation for this introspection lies in Britain’s ambivalent approach to the meandering fortunes of the Lisbon treaty inching towards ratification and one that has already witnessed a bitter debate in the House of Commons. Britain’s troubled relationship with the Brussels bureaucrats, who are perceived as meddlesome in its affairs when not asking it to conform to its diktats, has reached worrying proportions.

Pointedly, Britain has a long history of trying to come to grips with the European Union and assimilating the EU treaty while desperately seeking to escape the tentacles of a project that they were never comfortable with from the start. Recent memory will testify to rows over the European Union that helped to bring down two Conservative prime ministers: Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Labour also got into a pickle until the late 1980s, when the pendulum swung heavily towards the pro-Europeans.

Further, the last economic blow to shape British politics traced its origin to Europe when Britain’s forced exit from the exchange rate mechanism in 1992 resulted in national shame and embarrassment. The debate on joining the single currency did not spare Labour’s early years in power either.

But the dithering has now given way to taking a closer look at what the EU treaty would mean for the average Briton. This has resulted in heated exchanges among political parties where all sides traded charges, ranging from bad faith and deception, to plain lying about the treaty, its full implications and their real motives for supporting it or calling for a referendum. The voices were read as an informal assent to pushing Britain further down towards its own marginalisation in the European Union.

The harshest criticism of the treaty has come from those who view it as a blatant attempt to “hoodwink” or “bamboozle” the voters and smuggle into law most of the EU constitution rejected in the French and Dutch referendums in 2005. What was more galling was that it is parliament that is ratifying it rather than the voters. This controversial turn can be attributed to the fact that the government, led by Tony Blair, at the time, promised a referendum on the constitution in 2004. The promise has not been kept.

The European reform treaty signed in Lisbon in December last is a different kettle of fish, the Conservatives aver, terming it a cosmetic variant of the original constitution. The government is fully aware that were the treaty be put to the public, it would most certainly be thrown out. And Prime Minister Gordon Brown has clearly rejected the need for a referendum by arguing that the latest EU treaty is different from the defunct Constitution.

To make matters worse, there is growing resentment among the other EU members that the British secured substantial opt-outs from the constitution (negotiated by Tony Blair) in key “red line” policy areas of foreign affairs, labour legislation, the common law and the tax and social security systems. Yet they came back for more concessions in the Lisbon treaty.

No surprise then that the Brussels establishment see British voters as exceptionally ignorant and the British government as cowardly in making an effective case for Europe. Indeed, it has been hinted that Eurosceptics were acting in bad faith because if the referendum were lost, the EU would be hoist with more years of institutional wrangling.

Have the British contemplated a “worst case scenario” – an exit from the EU Club? Not a few would actually welcome it, especially those who view Britain as an exasperating obstacle to European unity. In case Britain is tempted, it should be a relief to know that the Lisbon treaty, for the first time, provides for just such a contingency. Valery Giscard d’Estaing, a former French president, and head of the drafting committee, has let it be known that any country that fails to ratify the Lisbon treaty should seek a special status or leave. More to the point, he has identified Britain as a likely candidate.

So where does Britain go from here? One must remember, however, that the EU, first and foremost, is an economic entity. Even if one were to evoke Britain’s culpability with respect to economic nationalism, it would pale in comparison with that of, say, France. As a champion of economic liberalisation, it has accepted the logic of a supranational project such as the single market and abided by the rules. Britain’s absence from the European top league is not advisable as it is more likely to increase nationalism within the EU than to decrease it.

There is also the “knockdown” effect. If Britain were to reject a document that other European nations regard as “unduly” generous to it, there is a distinct possibility of a confrontation that would threaten British membership of the EU. The timing would be inopportune, given the fact that Britain, among other things, is relying on EU support in its tensions with Russia. The spat over the Russian government’s order to the British Council, which promotes British culture and education abroad, to close its offices in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg, is only the beginning.

A reading of the tea-leaves suggests that the backbench rebellion will ultimately peter out. Some Eurosceptics would dearly love to emulate small countries such as Norway and Switzerland, which enjoy access to the single EU market, but which do so through the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and bilateral pacts. But Britain is not Norway or Switzerland. And things are seldom what they seem. The advantages would be offset by a weaker voice in EU decision-making. EFTA members have no influence over EU rules but must obey them nevertheless.

Britain out of the EU? Don’t bet on it. The Eurosceptics will then have a field day. But the 26 other countries would not look upon it kindly and would set their own terms for free access to their market. Britain would then be even more vulnerable to EU’s trading mechanism. Although the shadow cast by Brussels is lengthening over Gordon Brown’s premiership, ducking the rules of the game is just not cricket.

M N Hebbar is a Berlin based writer