Foreign Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence from Professor Richard Rose, FBA, University of Strathclyde and European University Institute
DISTINCTIVE UK PRIORITIES FOR THE EU’S FUTURE
1.1 The December 2011 European Council is a challenge, not a watershed, because it is unclear how eurozone members of the EU will react to future events. The German Chancellor is calling for changes in EU rules that could trigger a British referendum under terms of the 2011 European Union Act. To avoid misunderstandings and possible isolation, HMG should start preparing for such developments.
1.2 The European Union notionally endorses diversity as well as Union, but the predominant position favours all member states advancing in unison toward an ever closer union. Thus, the UK’s repeated challenges to further European integration are widely perceived as negative. This submission recommends that, consistent with HMG’s distinctive position, it should promote institutional diversity as a positive means of managing differences within an EU that has 27 or more member states.
1.2a Pragmatic experimentation. EU procedures for enhanced cooperation enable willing countries to adopt policies and countries with doubts to observe the experiment before deciding whether to join in. This has been Britain’s stance on the euro and the Stability Treaty can go into effect after ratification by 12 countries.
1.2b Give European citizens a say on major increases in EU powers. HMG should promote its 2011 EU Referendum Act as a positive step to address the EU’s democratic deficit by testing the commitment of Europe’s citizens to further expansions of the EU’s powers.
1.2c Link enhanced cooperation and referendum endorsement. A coalition of the willing implies that the unwilling should satisfy themselves by opting out. Therefore, future agreements on the expansion of EU powers should have complementary and contingent provisions for enhanced cooperation by countries that favour further integration and opt out clauses for countries that may not do so, eg Britain after a national referendum.
1.3 The above recommendations are based on an ESRC-funded study to be published by Oxford U. Press next spring, Representing Europeans: a Pragmatic Approach, and related publications. Both projects reflect my long-term interest in how growing cross-national interdependence can be managed by governments accountable to a national parliament and electorate. See for example, The Prime Minister in a Shrinking World and The Post-Modern Presidency.
2.1 Experimenting through enhanced cooperation occurs when some EU member states adopt a policy and others do not. This has been happening for decades in different policy sectors and institutional forms. For example, the Schengen agreement promoting easy movement across national boundaries started in 1985 and Britain and Ireland continue to opt out. Pragmatic experimentation enables governments that consider a policy in their national interest to cooperate with other member states and promptly learn how it works. Simultaneously, it allows governments that think a measure not in their interest to avoid being forced to join and, even worse, being forced to pay the costs of doing so if the experiment is unsuccessful.
2.2 Title IV of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Future of the European Union Article VI. Title III contain detailed rules for the use of enhanced co-operation to maintain momentum toward an ever closer Union when unanimity is lacking about what the EU should do. Hence, the practice is sometimes described by the term “differentiated integration”. The eurozone crisis pushes EU countries into uncharted waters. In conditions of high uncertainty, trial-and-error policies are being adopted in an experimental search for measures that will work. Since eurozone countries fall into three different groups--members; non-members with a commitment to join at some unspecified future date; and countries not expected to join--it is possible that different policies may be suited to each group. By allowing for differentiation, enhanced cooperation increases the number of countries satisfied with their EU obligations.
2.3 Enhanced cooperation can avoid the extremes of Britain vetoing an EU measure favoured by a substantial majority or Britain being compelled to adopt a policy unacceptable to the UK Parliament and citizens. In a 27-country European Union it is unlikely that Britain would be alone in hesitating about being in the vanguard of moves toward closer integration. However, in the absence of leadership from a major country, small states lack the political will and clout to secure major changes in what a predominant majority agrees.
2.4 The convention of the acquis communautaire prevents “retro-fitting” enhanced co-operation to established measures. Hence, it is rhetorical overkill to suggest that it would cause the EU to disintegrate. Where uniformity is required, for example, the admission of new member states or basic principles of the single Europe market, enhanced cooperation is not feasible. However, existing EU policies show that the case for uniformity tends to be exaggerated. Key measures affecting the three pillars of the EU are not uniformly applicable across EU member states, eg, border controls (Schengen); monetary policy (the euro); and defence (NAT0).
2.5 HMG should promote enhanced cooperation as desirable in principle and invoke it when issues emerge where there are pressures to act but no agreement about what is to be done. Ideally, these issues would include policies where Britain can lead in cooperation, as it did in air support for Libya, as well as those where its distinctive priorities recommend opting out.
2.6 Pragmatic experimentation through enhanced cooperation is not a commitment to a two-speed Europe. The dynamic consequence depends on its success. If an initiative is successful, laggards (that is, those who do not initially join) can catch up with leaders subsequently. This is the process by which the UK entered the European Union two decades after refusing to be a founder member. It also provides a firm institutional foundation for flexible integration, in which the member states that join together can differ from one policy to another. This is the basis on which Britain participates in the chief institution for European defence, NATO, while remaining outside the chief institution for European monetary policy, the ECB.
3.1 Giving European citizens a say through referendums. While the European Parliament has gained in powers vis a vis other EU institutions, its claim to represent EU citizens has fallen as turnout has settled below half the electorate. Moreover, key decisions in the EP are made by multi-national party groups, which research shows are much more in favour of an ever closer Union than are Europe’s citizens. Moreover, irreversible decisions on treaties expanding the EU’s powers can be agreed in the European Council by national governments representing less than half their country’s voters and binding future national governments. This is less than the super-majority normally required to endorse changes in national constitutions; ten member states require referendums on major changes in their national constitution.
3.2 Consistent with the EU principle of subsidiarity, it is open to the government of any EU country to call a referendum on an EU issue. At different times over the years 22 countries have called a national referendum on an EU issue on grounds of political principle, political prudence or for domestic political reasons. The conduct of a referendum campaign focuses attention on whether citizens want to be committed to further integration. Turnout at EU referendums is normally significantly higher than national participation in a European Parliament election. In three-quarters of the cases, the result of a referendum is popular endorsement of an EU measure. Public opinion in every EU member state favours a referendum vote on any new EU treaty (Annex 1).
3.3 The current practice of referendums on expanding EU powers has major flaws. National referendums have excluded between 72 and 99 percent of EU citizens from voting (Annex 2) and a single EU country can veto the adoption of an important measure supported by a preponderant majority of countries. Because a free and fair referendum vote risks the rejection of an EU agreement, current EU policy is to expand its powers by adopting “treaty-like” agreements through novel procedures. The new Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union is a prime example. It confers new powers on the European Commission and European Court of Justice and national governments are expected to get their parliaments to adopt fiscal measures prescribed therein without further reference to their national electorate.
3.4 The UK is now one of three member states with a legal requirement to hold a national referendum on treaties transferring powers to the EU. The Irish court has ruled that the Stability agreement is a Treaty subject to a national ballot. Danish lawyers have been able to finesse referendum requirements. National elections in member states, occurring at the rate of seven a year, present further challenges, as Greece most vividly demonstrates. In addition, the German Federal Court is now prepared to examine cases challenging whether EU measures are consistent with the democratic principles of the German Constitution.
3.5 HMG should call for European citizens to be given a bigger voice on major EU decisions through simultaneously held national referendums. This is a practical means of reducing the EU’s democratic deficit and increasing popular commitment to EU measures that national majorities endorse. Moreover, it does not require a new Treaty to be enacted. National governments that decide to hold a referendum need only co-ordinate the date and wording of a ballot. National governments hesitant about doing so would be under pressure to follow where others lead.
3.6 The prospect of a referendum on the transfer of powers to the EU should have a significant influence on discussions in Brussels about whether and how integration should be increased. It should encourage the pro-integration majorities in the Commission and Parliament to pay more attention to securing the commitment of their citizens. It would also remind national governments meeting in the European Council that British concerns with ambitious transfers of power are not a peculiarly insular fixation but one that a significant number of their own citizens may share.
4.1 Linking enhanced cooperation with popular support through referendums. Any treaty approved by all national governments in the European Council is likely to be endorsed by a majority of national referendums. But since all referendums raise the possibility of defeat, a treaty proposal should include clauses for opting out by countries rejecting a treaty and also clauses allowing countries to join subsequently if a new policy is successful.
4.2 HMG should have a two-pronged strategy for proposals to expand EU powers. It can seek support to modify proposals to make them acceptable in Britain. If this is not practical, it should emphasis including enhanced cooperation clauses that allow member states to co-operate and allow Britain to opt out. Such a strategy can be justified as consistent with the EU principle of diversity, authorized by the Treaty on European Union. It will also avoid conflict between the UK’s 2011 EU Act and commitments that majorities endorse.
22 May 2012
Annex 1
NATIONAL DEMAND FOR REFERENDUMS ON EU TREATIES
Annex 2
EXCLUSION OF EUROPE’S CITIZENS BY NATIONAL REFERENDUMS
(Percent of citizens in Member States not holding referendum)
% excluded from voting
