23 January 2013

Paul N Goldschmidt: David Cameron's EU speech - A monument of arrogance, incoherence and contempt!

The long-overdue speech of the British PM on his vision of the future of the EU has entirely lived up to expectations: it does not add a single new constructive thought to the debate, rehashing a series of demands in a form closer to an ultimatum than an offer to negotiate.

Let me first justify the deliberately these harsh accusations:

Arrogance: During his speech, the PM refers repeatedly to the relationship between the UK and the EU. He overlooks that he is not going to negotiate with those “grey suited, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels” but with 27 equal partners.

No doubt that the Treaty can be improved, but it is highly unlikely (and he knows it) to deliver a new framework that resembles, even remotely, his vision for the EU. Indeed, he will find across the table a “bloc” of 17 eurozone Members joined by other States who aspire to join EMU. Their common interests towards closer integration (recognised as necessary by the PM) far outweigh their undeniable preference for keeping the UK within the EU fold.

Incoherence: The call for greater democratic accountability is shared by a large majority of EU citizens and is not contentious. However, suggesting that national Parliaments be the arbiters is a recipe for total EU paralysis as it reintroduces “unanimity” everywhere by the back door. Reinforcing the EU Parliament and the accountability of the EU institutions and officials to its “democratically” elected members is the only pragmatic solution

Contempt: The closing paragraphs of the speech purport to demonstrate that the other 27 Members should be prepared (in their own interest) to make concessions as the price for continued UK membership. It is the latest version of the self-congratulatory credo “British is best”, implying that others should be grateful to Britain for even entertaining the possibility of remaining an EU Member.

The speech also contains a series of half-truths:

Justifying the referendum by the lack of opportunity UK voter has had to express their views overlooks the fact that each Treaty was negotiated by a democratically appointed Government and approved by a democratically elected Parliament.

The PM feigns to “commiserate” with his fellow citizens when “they see what has happened to the euro. And they note that many of our political and business leaders urged Britain to join at the time”! After all, the euro has appreciated by 20 per cent versus Sterling and, if I am not mistaken, his Government has put the UK economy through an “austerity ringer” that has nothing to envy the policies of some distressed EMU Member States. It is true that by “competitive devaluation” the UK has been able to maintain its exports and shield itself from even greater hardship.

Defending the referendum as being “responsible” overlooks the fact that “kicking the can down the road” to (at least) 2017 increases uncertainty dramatically. Investors and industrialists are likely to defer projects and erratic markets will respond with the ebb and flow of public opinion. Now that the cat is out of the bag an early resolution is imperative.

Finally there is a deliberate attempt to confuse the audience concerning the timetable: On the one hand, Treaty “renegotiation” is postponed to the post crisis era. On the other the PM states that: “The European Union that emerges from the Eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the eurozone”. So there is a fundamental problem: does the UK participate fully in this transformation of the EU so as to preserve its (financial services) interests? If so, how can it renegotiate its relationship with the new EU it has contributed to bring about? If not, it is unlikely that its partners will be keen to revisit the arrangements that they will have put so recently in place.

In conclusion, the PM’s speech will remain a landmark in EU affairs even if its principle aim was to address English public and parliamentary opinion and had his re-election as main objective. The PM should be reminded that the electoral promises of President Hollande to renegotiate the “budgetary treaty” ended in a total fiasco. Even if continued membership remained the least “bad option”, he would be able to defend it if renegotiation led to the purely cosmetic changes similar to those swallowed by his French counterpart. It will be interesting to observe from abroad how his (pro-EU) coalition partners will react and to what extent he remains the self appointed master of the calendar.

This is a sad day for Europe and for the United Kingdom. If both will have to live eventually with the unpalatable consequences of “Brexit”, maybe this speech will inspire his partners to move with greater speed and determination towards a continental Federal Europe and leave it to Britannia to “rule the waves”!

Paul N Goldschmidt, Director, European Commission (ret); Member of the Advisory Board of the Thomas More Institute.

Tel: +32 (02) 6475310 / +33 (04) 94732015 / Mob: +32 (0497) 549259

E-mail: paul.goldschmidt@skynet.be / Web: www.paulngoldschmidt.eu

© Paul Goldschmidt