Speech by Ruth Lea, 3 July 2007

1 Introduction

I shall interpret the question of "How does the EU get out this hole" in its broadest possible way - in the sense that the EU has fundamental frictions that cannot be resolved without a major reconfiguration of its political structure. The frictions were evident at the recent Summit [21/22 June] and they will continue to gnaw away at the EU. I would like these frictions to be openly discussed and then, hopefully, resolved. I come at the issue in a positive light - wishing to be constructive not destructive. 

I start from the position that the EU is historically a positive development. And that EU membership has, on balance, benefited and will continue to benefit most of the member states. I also take the view that the UK was right to join the EEC in 1973. But I now believe so much has changed in the UK, in Europe and globally that Britain should now consider a looser relationship with the EU - not just for Britain's sake but also for Europe's sake. 

2 The "twin frictions"

There is no doubt there are persistent frictions and divisions within the EU. I believe these frictions are irreconcilable given the current structure and membership of the EU. There are basically two - what I shall refer to as the "twin frictions".

Firstly, there is the friction between those member states, including the all-important Franco-German axis, that wish to push ahead with further political integration and those, including the UK, which do not. No country, least of all Britain with its very different outlook and history, should stand in the way of the federalist ambitions of key, founding member states. I've heard many complaints about Britain's perceived lack of "Communautaire" spirit and our reluctance to go along with the European integrationist project. There is genuine frustration. The negotiations at the Summit about Britain's "red lines" (even though they were mainly red herrings vamped up for a domestic audience) and Britain's refusal to adopt the euro just reminds our Continental partners that we will never be happy members of "the ever closer union of the people's of Europe" (as expressed in the Rome Treaty). We will always be an irritant - though Continental politicians are usually far too polite to express it quite like this.

Only last Wednesday [27 June] Giscard d'Estaing, grand architect of the Constitutional Treaty, said on French radio that "integration is vital for our Continent. And if the UK doesn't continue with us in this process of integration, conclusions must be drawn." "Which conclusions?" asked the interviewer - to which Giscard replied "we must find a ‘special status' for Great Britain. If the British want to be apart, well, then we must be able to offer them that, and they must be able to accept."

In addition, there is the matter of the Eurozone. Historically, currencies have only survived and thrived when they are backed by political and economic union. It may be that the euro will prove to be an exception. But a euro backed by political union surely has a better prognosis than one that is not. And we cannot deny the tensions that are building up in the eurozone now.

Secondly, there is the increasingly sensitive issue of further enlargement. "Enlargement fatigue" has set in following the extraordinary enlargements from EU15 (in 2004) to EU27 (now). It was probably inevitable. In addition, membership for Turkey (especially) and certain Western Balkan states (excluding, arguably, Croatia) raises seemingly insuperable political obstacles. It is quite clear that the French will not accept Turkey as a member state. Chirac altered the French Constitution so that any EU enlargement beyond Croatia would be subjected to a referendum.

The concept of "privileged partnership" has been suggested for Turkey but has so far been rejected by Turkish PM Erdoğan. Yet there is much to be gained politically by anchoring Turkey into a stable relationship with the EU.

These irreconcilable "twin frictions" are, for me, the "hole" that the EU is in. How do we get out of it?

3 The way forward for the 21^st century: reconfigured Europe 

We need to think forward and we need to think boldly. I know that there is a lively debate on the Continent about a "reconfiguration" of Europe so that disparate ambitions can be accommodated, a stronger, more flexible "Europe" can be built and the EU's frictions (the "hole") can be resolved. Britain, as one of Europe's largest and most important countries, and as the most vocal critic of and reluctant participant in the European integrationist project, is absolutely central to this. Its significance cannot be exaggerated.

The obvious way forward is for us to respond positively to Giscard's suggestion - take up his challenge - and start planning negotiations for a "special status" for Britain. The "special status" should be based on trade and cooperation, whilst opting out of political and economic union. If we went down this route, it would address the unhappiness in this country about the integrationist direction of the EU whilst constructively responding to Giscard's challenge.

In the language of the EU we should probably negotiate a "privileged partnership". If so, this concept would then adopt a new status - a status that Turkey should be happy with without feeling "fobbed off". And it could be generously applied to all those European countries that are unlikely to follow the federalist route - for whatever reason. As well as Turkey - the Western Balkans and, possibly, the Ukraine could be possible contenders. Similarly Norway, Iceland and Switzerland could be contenders - and any other current member states which would prefer this looser relationship rather than full membership.

This "reconfigured", flexible Europe will surely be a more resilient model for the changing 21^st century than the current 20^th century one with all its frictions and inflexibilities. This is the obvious way out of the EU's hole.

4 Final thoughts: democracy  

Of course, I've concentrated on the EU in general tonight. But I would like to add two thoughts on the notion of a new looser relationship for Britain, based on trade and cooperation, whilst opting out of political and economic union.

Of course, I think it's the right relationship for Britain in the rapidly changing world of the 21^st century when the EU's regulations and restrictions will increasingly act as an impediment to our future prosperity. But, it's also what the British people want. All our polling shows that when they are asked what relationship they want with the EU (withdrawal, or, secondly, staying in the economic and political union, or thirdly, based on trade and cooperation, whilst opting out of political and economic union) the third looser option is the option of choice.

Who would argue with the people's choice? It's called democracy.