Foreign Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence from Sir Michael Franklin KCB, CMG

Deputy Director General, European Commission, 1973–77; Head of the European Secretariat, Cabinet Office, 1977–81; subsequently Permanent Secretary, Board of Trade and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Summary

The December 2011 European Council did not disrupt business and was not a watershed.

The EU can accommodate different national needs without the dangers of a “two-tier” Europe.

Political changes in France and elsewhere open a new debate on how to restore growth in Europe; the UK must play a full part.

n other important areas of EU activity, the UK has an important contribution to make.

HMG should see its role in the EU in constructive not defensive terms, and present it in this way to Parliament and the British public.

1. The December 2011 European Council was not, and should not be seen as a watershed. Whatever the arguments for and against the position taken by HMG at the meeting, its effect was not to block progress. With characteristic ingenuity, the EU institutions found a way of dealing with the UK’s unwillingness to sign up to the draft fiscal declaration. It is encouraging that, since the meeting, HMG has shown every sign of wishing to proceed with “business as usual”. The eurozone crisis is too serious to worry too much about legal niceties.

2. Over the years, the EU has shown itself adept at accommodating different requirements of the member states. It abounds in derogations, opt-outs, partial membership, special treatment and other departures from a monolithic structure. I see no need and many dangers in trying to formalise this practice into some kind of two-tier EU.

3. It is now clear, notably with the arrival of a new French President, that a new debate on how to deal with the economic crisis is beginning. It may not reopen the Fiscal Treaty as such but it will certainly lead to a vigorous challenge to its adequacy as a means of solving the many problems of recession, unemployment and banking failures. In one form or another, there will be more emphasis on parallel policies to stimulate growth. This will be an EU-wide debate and it is therefore important that the UK should play its full part in it. It could also provide a convenient opportunity for the Fiscal Treaty to be incorporated into the EU Treaties. Since its contents accord so closely with current UK policy, there seems no reason why HMG should not give its consent, perhaps as part of a package of measures acceptable to the UK resulting from the current debate.

4. I note with satisfaction that the Committee’s enquiry is “starting from the assumption that the UK should and will remain an EU Member”. This must surely be right. But at present the UK is not getting full value from its membership. The Committee could play a very valuable role in asking, more generally than the particular questions on which the Committee has sought evidence, how the UK Government should play its role as an EU member. All too often in the past, under governments of different persuasions, the UK has put itself on the defensive in Europe. Hence it is often seen by others as a reluctant member, not willing to engage constructively and all too often seeking special treatment for the UK.

5. When we were fighting for a fair UK budgetary contribution such an attitude was inevitable and the legacy is still with us. But that touches only one aspect of EU policy. There are others where the UK can and should have a positive contribution. That has always been true of trade policy where the generally liberal trade policies have owed much to British influence. Even in agriculture, the CAP, albeit still absorbing too large a share of the budget, has changed significantly for the better in ways much closer to UK thinking. In those areas where the EU has still not achieved a single market, there is much for the UK to play for.

6. The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy is a hugely important and growing part of the EU’s activities. Here, surely, with its basis in co-operation rather than majority voting, is a place where the UK by virtue of its history and diplomatic skills can and should play a leading role.

7. If, in these and other areas, the UK Government can be seen actively to serve British and European interests well, it would offer public opinion good news to counterbalance the negative and often misleading accounts currently offered by the media. Its actions and decisions need to be explained to Parliament and to the British public not in confrontational terms but as being the result of honest negotiation and in terms which show where the outcome has been beneficial for Britain and of the EU as a whole. As I wrote in 1990,1 “by all means let Britain act in the future more as though what is good for Britain is good for the Community, but we need also to believe that what is good for the Community may be good for Britain”.

18 May 2012