Global -Vision/TaxPayers` Alliance Fringe Event

30 September 2008, Conservative Party Conference, Birmingham
“What happens next for Britain and Europe?” with Martin Boon (ICM), Martin Howe QC, Iain Martin (Comment editor, Telegraph) and Ruth Lea (Global Vision)

“Global Vision’s Perspective”
Ruth Lea, Director, Global Vision

I’m delighted to be here. But before I discuss “what happens next for Britain and Europe?” or, indeed, “what should happen next for Britain and Europe?” may I tell you about Global Vision.

Lord Norman Blackwell and I set up Global Vision last year, because we felt that there was a need to open up the debate on just what sort of relationship Britain should have with the EU. We started from the position that, back in the 1970s, it was understandable why Britain should seek membership of the EEC, as it then was. We were economically “the sick man of Europe”. “We had lost an empire and not yet found a role.” Meanwhile the EEC was growing fast and clearly was one of the two major economic blocs in the world. The US was the other, of course. To belong to the EEC “club” and be inside the EEC’s customs union, at a time when tariffs were high (they are no longer), was a very attractive idea. 

How different it is now. Since then, the UK has changed and is no longer quite the sick man that we were, even though we do have our economic problems. Since then, the EEC has changed out of all recognition. It is now the EU and is pushing ever further towards political and economic integration. The Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) and the Nice Treaty (2001) were all major treaties pushing the integrationist agenda forward. And there may yet be the Lisbon Treaty.

And, since then, the world has changed. China and India are developing very quickly and the EU, as an economic power, has a shrinking share of the global economy. Moreover, the EU’s share will continue to shrink, hastened by demographic decline. If we are to fully prosper in the new world of the 21st century, then we will have to raise our competitiveness, maximise our flexibility and free ourselves up. 

As full members of the EU there are, however, disadvantages. As we locked inside the EU’s customs union, we cannot negotiate bilateral free trade deals with countries such as India, the US, Canada and Australia that would be advantageous to us. We are subject to the inflexible regulations of the Single Market for which the costs significantly outweigh the benefits, even on the EU’s own figures. We have to participate in damaging common policies (including the CFP and the CAP). And we are a significant net contributor to the EU’s budget.

The truth is that full economic and political membership of the EU is restricting, old-fashioned and out of tune with 21st century. There must be another way.

Global Vision believes that we should renegotiate a new relationship for Britain with the EU. A relationship which is based on free trade and mutually beneficial bilateral cooperation, but one in which Britain opts out of political and economic integration. It would be a relationship closer to the relationship enjoyed by Switzerland.

Moreover, we do not just believe that such a relationship would be economically right for Britain, it would also be popular. When we poll people and offer them a three-way choice: (i) stay in and integrate further, (ii) withdraw (iii) have a looser relationship based on trade and cooperation, the “third way” is consistently the option of choice. About a quarter opts for integration, about a quarter opts for withdrawal and about a half opts for the “third way”. It is, moreover, legally feasible and I would argue, politically feasible as well. And this brings me to the question of “what next for Britain and Europe?”  

What next for Britain and Europe?
We are currently a full member of the EU and, as such, we are committed to the EU’s policies, with a few major exceptions including the Euro and the Schengen area. Under the current treaties, there is no doubt that the EU is pushing ahead in many policy areas with further integration in, for example, financial services, defence and energy. If/when the Lisbon Treaty is enacted the process of further integration can only be accelerated. Ireland’s “no” vote is currently holding up the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty but the likelihood has to be that the treaty will eventually be enacted.

[Incidentally, the Lisbon Treaty is, of course, the Constitution in all but name. We recently held a joint conference on the issue of the future of Britain and Europe with the Telegraph and our keynote speaker was former French President Giscard d’Estaing, architect of the Constitution. He made it perfectly clear that, as far as he was concerned and he should know, the Lisbon Treaty was effectively the same as the Constitution, though written in incomprehensible legalise. Gordon Brown, disgracefully, reneged on his party’s 2005 Manifesto promise to give the British people a referendum on the Constitution – and hence on the Lisbon Treaty.]

So the choice facing the UK with its current relationship with the EU is, therefore, either further integration or faster, more comprehensive, further integration. There’s not much choice at all really. And it’s equally clear that the British people do not want this. We believe that we should not let the matter rest here. As I have already said, we favour renegotiating a new relationship for Britain with the EU - a looser, more modern relationship.

But would the other member states be prepared to consider this? Well, if the views of Giscard d’Estaing are anything to go by, the answer is an unequivocal “yes”. He has said on several occasions, that as the future of Europe is one of integration and as Britain always seems so reluctant to integrate further, then a “special status” should be considered for Britain. And, at our afore-mentioned conference, he enlarged on this thought.

At the core of Giscard’s speech was his analysis of the profound differences between most European countries, on the one hand, and mainly Britain, on the other hand, on the degree of integration required for the future success of Europe. The majority wants integration to continue – indeed they regard this as necessary for the future of Europe. For others, especially Britain, this is not the case. Such differences create antagonisms. They create frictions. Surely it would be better for all, if these antagonisms were to end. One way forward is to unequivocally recognise that Britain is a special case. If Britain does not want to integrate further, then Britain should, must, be offered a “special status”. Britain could then opt out of any EU developments towards further integration. It would be a case of “this far, but no further”. Some of us would look for a more radical renegotiation – but this would be a very important step. 

He also commented on the historical truth that Britain’s relationship with the EU has been an equivocating one. Sometimes we claim we want to be “at the heart of Europe”. Other times (much more frequently) we obstruct further moves towards integration insisting on, for example, a series of opt-outs and red lines.  

The significance of the President’s speech cannot be exaggerated. It is obvious that some Continental politicians, at the very highest level, are prepared to negotiate a new settlement for Britain with the EU. Former President Giscard d’Estaing, informed by his unrivalled knowledge and experience of European politics, has offered a solution and opened a door. 

In conclusion, let us heed Giscard’s words. Let us heed the people’s views. And let us move the debate on the relationship Britain should have with the EU further on.