Tory wars over Europe

[Sheilbh]

115 Tory MPs backed the rebel amendment which was more than was expected. I'm still unsure whether it's more baffling that they're voting against their own Queen's speech or that they want a referendum to defend Parliamentary sovereignty

As is often the case I broadly agree with Clive Crook:

U.K. Exit From EU May Really Happen
By Clive Crook May 14, 2013 11:00 PM GMT

Visiting the U.K. over the past week, I realized for the first time that Britain might actually leave the European Union. Of course, it has talked about this eventuality, on and off, almost since it joined -- but for years the constant whining could be dismissed as so much background noise. Things have changed. Attitudes are hardening, and by promising an "in or out" referendum on EU membership after the next election, Prime Minister David Cameron may have put the country on a course that will force it to choose.

If the referendum Cameron promises for 2017 were put to voters tomorrow, the U.K. would probably leave. According to polling by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, only 26 percent of Britons think Europe's economic integration has helped the economy, and only 43 percent have a favorable opinion of the EU. Other recent polls show steady (though mostly slender) majorities in favor of exit.

Cameron will have to win another election to keep his referendum promise. His government is unpopular so that's no sure thing. But the opposition Labour Party will probably have to promise a referendum, too, once the 2015 election comes into view -- especially if the U.K. Independence Party, which is committed to an exit, keeps gathering strength. (UKIP already attracts more support than the pro-European Liberal Democrats.) It's hard to run on a platform of denying voters a choice.

Cameron isn't a Euro-skeptic: He's the pro-EU leader of a party that's long been bitterly divided on the issue. To hold the Conservatives together and keep the country in the EU, he wants to draft a new European treaty that is more to Britain's liking before a referendum occurs. The other EU leaders say they want nothing to do with this.

It's a point that British advocates of exit have seized on. In an article in the Times last week, Nigel Lawson, a former Tory chancellor of the exchequer (and no knee-jerk Little Englander), said he expected nothing from the renegotiation and would be voting for exit. Several other former ministers have said the same.

Here's the surprise: These interventions weren't greeted as reckless or sensational, as they once would have been. Suddenly, exit is on the political agenda. Much of the City has turned Euro-skeptic as a reaction to what many see as a vindictive regulatory assault from Brussels. U.K. businesses used to be strongly pro-EU, but that's no longer so. What once might have seemed an idle or even absurd threat has become a real possibility.

I think the question of whether the U.K. should remain part of the EU (EUGNEMUQ) is a closer call than either side wants to admit -- and, just as Cameron says, it all depends on the terms. If the EU responds to the economic crisis with new strides toward a United States of Europe, the costs for the U.K. will surely outweigh the benefits: Britain just doesn't want to be part of that enterprise. If EU membership will require eventual membership of the euro area -- and that's the prevailing model, as though the crisis had never happened -- Britain should again say no thanks.

As free trade becomes the global norm, the benefits of open access to Europe's markets are less and less confined to EU members. Cameron, visiting President Barack Obama in Washington this week, discussed the proposed U.S.-EU trade pact, among other things. The U.S. has signed free-trade agreements that span the globe. The U.K. could do the same.

At the very least, Britain's pro-EU forces need better arguments. They say Cameron shouldn't have raised the issue in the first place, implying it's better to deny voters a say. What are voters to make of that? Pro-EU politicians keep repeating that exit is unthinkable -- but never really say why. What makes Switzerland's relationship with the EU unthinkable? They think Britain should be leading Europe, that it maximizes its global influence that way. Well, that's just delusional. Why should Britain expect to lead a union of 27, soon to be 28, countries?

Let's take Canada as a thought experiment. It's a small economy next to a big economy. Its global influence is limited by its size, of course. Would it be better off as part of the U.S.? Would its influence in the world be greater? And wouldn't Canadians be giving up something they value very highly? The pro-EU cause should find some answers to these questions.

For Europe's sake, as much as it pains them, the other EU governments should acknowledge that Cameron is right about the need for a new constitutional settlement. The Pew survey shows that disaffection with the EU is by no means confined to the U.K. Grievances aren't concentrated in the south, either. Support for the union in France -- co-architect of the whole project -- is actually lower than in Britain.

Can it seriously be maintained that Europe's economic calamity raises no questions about the EU's constitutional direction, that the commitment to "ever closer union" enshrined in the founding documents can't ever be reviewed, and that the euro system, despite its recent difficulties, is fundamentally sound? That's what the EU's leaders are asking an increasingly dismayed European electorate to believe.

Cameron's critics say he's the trouble maker. I don't think so. The real threat to the EU is the other leaders' bizarre refusal to acknowledge what's happening.

[Gups]

I think it's going to happen. At the very least there will be a referendum.

The author is correct as well. Having been consistently, if mildly pro-EU,  I'm not sure how I would vote now.

[Warspite]

I wonder what happens to support for the EU when you ask about the free movement of people. I suspect that younger voters would balk at the idea that, upon exit, they probably won't have the ability to live and work freely across the Europe. Even if only a limited number do in practice, the idea that one is free to do so is still quite appealing.

Brexit would also set up an almighty showdown between the immigration authorities and businesses, when the Home Office realises it can start getting somewhere close to the immigration target by getting rid of EU workers. They've already done this with non-EU workers through a variety of bureaucratic means (a good chum of mine had a visa renewal refused because the page number of one of his copied documents was obscured).

Were I in charge of the EU-In campaign, one of my main lines of attack would be to ask the Outers why they have confidence that, outside the EU, they can negotiate the access we would want, when there is no precedent of a big state doing this, never mind a big state that has left in acrimonious circumstances. And then ask them what happens if, once we have left the EU, we find that we still can't break into those magical growing foreign export markets, and it turns out our ability to match German, Italian and French achievements in this regard had nothing to do with EU regulation whatsoever.

And I would ask them why they believe Scotland is better off in a union, but the UK isn't. After all, Scotland has diverged politically from the rest of the UK to a great degree, and being in the union has meant it has had to accept very unpopular policies like being the home of the British nuclear deterrent.

Another question: which states would be keen to do bilateral trade deals with us without the weight of the rest of the EU market behind us; growth markets are keen to sell to us, yes, but ones rich enough to purchase our expensive specialised exports are probably also the sorts of countries eager to build their own industries producing these same products.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. But I really am sceptical that building advantageous access to foreign markets really is as simple as the Outers suggest.

[alfred russel]

I wonder what happens to support for the EU when you ask about the free movement of people. I suspect that younger voters would balk at the idea that, upon exit, they probably won't have the ability to live and work freely across the Europe. Even if only a limited number do in practice, the idea that one is free to do so is still quite appealing.

Brexit would also set up an almighty showdown between the immigration authorities and businesses, when the Home Office realises it can start getting somewhere close to the immigration target by getting rid of EU workers. They've already done this with non-EU workers through a variety of bureaucratic means (a good chum of mine had a visa renewal refused because the page number of one of his copied documents was obscured).

Were I in charge of the EU-In campaign, one of my main lines of attack would be to ask the Outers why they have confidence that, outside the EU, they can negotiate the access we would want, when there is no precedent of a big state doing this, never mind a big state that has left in acrimonious circumstances. And then ask them what happens if, once we have left the EU, we find that we still can't break into those magical growing foreign export markets, and it turns out our ability to match German, Italian and French achievements in this regard had nothing to do with EU regulation whatsoever.

And I would ask them why they believe Scotland is better off in a union, but the UK isn't. After all, Scotland has diverged politically from the rest of the UK to a great degree, and being in the union has meant it has had to accept very unpopular policies like being the home of the British nuclear deterrent.

Another question: which states would be keen to do bilateral trade deals with us without the weight of the rest of the EU market behind us; growth markets are keen to sell to us, yes, but ones rich enough to purchase our expensive specialised exports are probably also the sorts of countries eager to build their own industries producing these same products.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. But I really am sceptical that building advantageous access to foreign markets really is as simple as the Outers suggest.

There are non EU members that are part of the schengen area. I know the UK isn't schengen now, but free movement can happen without being in the EU. Whether that would happen in the UK's case is debatable, but the argument "we should be in the EU or they will retaliate against us and try to force us to stay on our island" may backfire.

[Gups]

I think you potentially underplay the extnet to which Britain is a big market for others.

I suspect a substantial portion of the antis woudl support disunion between the England and Scotland.

Free movement between EU states is all well and good for us metropolitan middle classes, less so for workers who see their wages driven downwards.  Pro-Europeans need to recognise this.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

given the way things are going there are less and less pro-EUers on the continent too

[Sheilbh]

I suspect a substantial portion of the antis woudl support disunion between the England and Scotland.

Yeah. UKIP's a bit like an English SNP in some ways.

Free movement between EU states is all well and good for us metropolitan middle classes, less so for workers who see their wages driven downwards.  Pro-Europeans need to recognise this.

Definitely and as with Scotland the argument for staying needs to be more than just how dangerous leaving would be.

[Valmy]

Definitely and as with Scotland the argument for staying needs to be more than just how dangerous leaving would be.

Are England, Wales, and NI working on something to make Scotland want to stay?  Does Scotland have any particular grievences that could be addressed?

[Warspite]

I think you potentially underplay the extnet to which Britain is a big market for others.

I suspect a substantial portion of the antis woudl support disunion between the England and Scotland.

Free movement between EU states is all well and good for us metropolitan middle classes, less so for workers who see their wages driven downwards.  Pro-Europeans need to recognise this.

Given wage growth has been abysmal over the last 30 years in the US too (4% in real terms since 1978?) I would suggest we need to be careful about ascribing too much causation to the EU labour market.

You're possibly right about the Little Englanders, though I'd suggest there's a strong strand of unionism among a good subset of the EU-Outers.

Don't know about the market. You could be right. But equally, it will be protracted and I believe costly to set about setting up a whole host of bilateral trade agreements.

[Gups]

Definitely and as with Scotland the argument for staying needs to be more than just how dangerous leaving would be.

Are England, Wales, and NI working on something to make Scotland want to stay?  Does Scotland have any particular grievences that could be addressed?

Personally don't see any reason to bribe them and I'd rather we went our separate ways now. They'd be mad to leave but it's up to them.

[Gups]

Given wage growth has been abysmal over the last 30 years in the US too (4% in real terms since 1978?) I would suggest we need to be careful about ascribing too much causation to the EU labour market.

I gather there has been some fuss about immiration in the US as well.

In a democracy it doesn't much matter what the real causes of working wage stasis is. The perception amongst those who are actually affected is that it is cheap labour flooding into the country. And they are probably right to be fair.

[Sheilbh]

Are England, Wales, and NI working on something to make Scotland want to stay?  Does Scotland have any particular grievences that could be addressed?

I hope not and no. But just threatening and hectoring the Scots about how they'll fail on their own isn't that attractive a campaign - same goes for the EU and UK.

In fairness I think the Scottish campaign's got more positive since.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I suspect that if the English were to be consulted then Scottish independence would become more likely.

[Valmy]

In fairness I think the Scottish campaign's got more positive since.

In what sense?

I was just wondering if Scotland really felt like they were getting screwed somehow.  I thought devolution was good so their were at least a few focuses of political power not in Westminster, which I always felt was a weakness.

[The Minsky Moment]

I gather there has been some fuss about immiration in the US as well.

The effect on wages is contested; my read of the studies is that there has been some impact but it is relatively marginal.