|
|
If anyone were convinced that the UK should leave the EU, [Tusk's] deal would not change their mind. It proposes a mechanism to protect the position of members who are not part of the economic and monetary union. But, notes Mr Tusk, this “cannot constitute a veto nor delay urgent decisions”. Once again, the heads of government are to “set out our commitment to increase efforts to enhance competitiveness”. The council has been committed to a similarly vague rhetorical aim at least since the launch of its Lisbon agenda in 2000 .
In all, Mr Cameron has laboured to produce a mouse. His premise has been that the UK has a place only in a “reformed EU”. Eurosceptics will argue that, since the union is fundamentally unreformed, the logic of his own position is exit. They will be right. [...]
The background to the choice is also uncomfortably clear. The UK is a semi-detached member of the EU. The British do not feel they need the union to strengthen the legitimacy of their political institutions. They have no interest in joining the single currency. They (or, at least, the English) are mostly reluctant outsiders. That will not change.
At the same time, 44 per cent of UK exports go to the EU, against 17 per cent to the US. No less important, the political stability and prosperity of the continent is (and always has been) a vital British interest. We might sum up the attitude as follows: “We do not want to be in but we do not want to be out either. So please make an EU we would like.”
The continental Europeans are also torn on the British question. Given the existential challenges the EU faces, the last thing they need is protracted uncertainty over the place of this reluctant member. But it is hard to argue that the union would be better off without its second-largest economy and a country with a long history of democratic stability, close connections to the English-speaking democracies, an effective security establishment, a liberal attitude to commerce and a global outlook. [...]
Nobody can credibly argue that EU membership has been a significant obstacle to UK prosperity. [...]
At the same time, by participating in the EU, the UK has a voice in the affairs of its closest neighbours and, with them, those of the world. Yes, outside the EU, the UK (or maybe England alone) may decide its own laws. But it will lose that voice. The option of leaving the union while seeking to enjoy the present access to markets, even if it were feasible, would be the worst of both worlds: EU rules without a voice in the EU. A clean exit would be better. [...]
The UK needs a voice in Europe. Europe also needs the UK to have that voice. It is a relationship of the head not of the heart. But it is still one very much worth having. That is true for the UK. It is also true for its partners and allies.