International

A few years ago, with a great deal of bombast, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that he would hold a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. If other member states want Britain to remain in the EU, they’d have to agree to a looser form of cooperation. The SP is also in favour of looser cooperation: cooperation yes, superstate no. That’s exactly why we oppose the British demands, made public this week: an elephant has given birth to a mouse.

What does Cameron want now from the EU? A treaty amendment isn’t needed, he says, but he does want a guarantee that the UK will not be obliged to go along with any further transfer of powers to Brussels. The principle of an ‘ever closer union’ isn’t, then, applicable in his country. Beyond that, he also wants a guarantee that the euro will not become the only legal tender within the EU. National parliaments must be able to show the red card to new EU laws and to be able to demand the revising or withdrawal of existing laws. Finally, there must be an assurance that eurozone countries cannot dictate to non-eurozone countries of which there remain nine in total.

The second and fourth demands are hard to take seriously, when the UK has an opt-out when it comes to the euro and can keep its pound as national currency. As for being dictated to by the eurozone, that’s even less on the cards. The UK is absolutely not bound by the agreements which the eurozone countries come to amongst themselves. The introduction of a red card for national parliaments is more interesting. This was also in the SP’s election manifesto and it would indeed increase the influence of national lawmakers. If, however, you are not going to put this in a treaty, it will remain a sort of gentlemen’s agreement that the European Commission can simply set aside, by referring for instance to an ‘emergency situation’. The opt-out regarding development towards a superstate could set a good precedent for the Netherlands, but as for defining such a development, that could involve a very long struggle back and forth. So this isn’t really a clear demand, either.

The SP wants to see a fundamental debate on the European Union. It was not for nothing that in 2005 we campaigned against the European Constitution and we have never been happy with the Lisbon Treaty, which immediately after the ‘No’ vote in the referendum on the Constitution, was forced through against the express will of the people who voted. So it would be excellent were a new debate to open up around the treaty. It’s extremely disappointing that Cameron now says that there’s probably not enough time to effect such a treaty amendment, in which case it would have been better had he brought forward clear demands while there was sufficient time. Evidently Cameron had already come to the conclusion that he wouldn’t get enough support from other member states for this.

By declaring the treaty immutable, Cameron also robs the member states’ citizens of the chance to change European cooperation on a fundamental level. Even if the majority of British people vote, as a result, for Brexit, the rest of us would still be stuck with the existing treaty. It’s still the case that the leader of the European Parliament Liberal ALDE group, Guy Verhofstadt, is working on a report on treaty amendment, with the goal of transforming the EU as speedily as possible into a superstate. Whether the report will ever be taking seriously by leaders of governments is the question, but it could perhaps lead to a debate about treaty amendments. This would enable us to counterpose our ideas to those of Verhofstadt, proposing treaty amendments to enable us once again to cooperate effectively without undermining national and local democracy. Pity that such a debate has to begin with a report from the European Parliament’s biggest europhile, while one of the most eurosceptic heads of government let the chance go. Perhaps Cameron could still sharpen up his demands a bit?