Britain’s relationship with the EU is ambiguous. Since I became an MEP in 2005, I have spent most weekends knocking on doors across London, speaking to constituents. A few of my continental MEP friends would do well to join me and witness the disconnect between their vision of Europe and that of British voters.
Generally, my constituents tell me they want a trading relationship, with possibly a bit more in those areas where a deeper relationship may be justified. In Brussels, many of my MEP colleagues speak openly of “The European Project”, moving towards ever-closer political union and more centralisation.
Unless it is tackled, that gulf in perceptions is only going to grow. That is why David Cameron is the only party leader offering, and able to deliver, an in/out referendum on our EU membership. Labour and the LibDems won’t offer it, and UKIP can’t deliver it.
So, if Labour wins power on 7 May, I expect very little change in our relationship with the EU. After all, the current shadow foreign secretary was the man who “negotiated” away £7bn of the UK rebate with nothing in return. Under Labour, that relationship with the EU will continue to drift towards a political union.
If the Conservatives win, expect a referendum by 2017, which means 12 to 18 months of intense negotiations as Cameron seeks to secure changes that benefit the whole of the EU, as well as some special provisions that recognise the UK’s decision to stay outside the euro, and away from the inevitable centralisation of economic policy that goes with the eurozone.
In Brussels, fellow MEPs and EU officials know that Cameron is serious in saying things cannot go on as before. Already I believe there are allies in Brussels that ‘get it’, such as Frans Timmermans, the straight-talking ‘first vice-president’ of the European Commission, who has forced the commission to slash the number of proposals it makes, and to cut back EU red tape. At our first meeting, Timmermans made it clear to me that he saw himself as the commissioner to make ‘Brexit’ unattractive.
However, a lot of people ask me about the issues we will put on the table in the renegotiation. Part of the government’s problem was that it asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to carry out an assessment called the Balance of Competences Review. Unsurprisingly, the FCO authors found that all is rosy and little change in Britain’s relationship with the EU is required. Perhaps the FCO mandarins could join me on the doorstep speaking to voters, for example in Newham, where the EU’s communist-like sugar regime threatens jobs at the Tate & Lyle factory. Try telling them that all is well with the EU.
Once we have set out what we want, the key to any negotiation is understanding what can be achieved by UK domestic reform, by EU legislative reform, and by full-blown EU treaty change.
The first option is far preferable, given that it is within our control. For example, there are things we can do through domestic legislation, such as reducing the pull factors on benefits tourists. Changing the EU’s treaties is more difficult, but Cameron has achieved things before that people said were impossible, such as taking the UK out of the eurozone’s bailout mechanism, or cutting the EU’s budget.
Whether we stay in the EU or leave, there will be benefits and costs. However, I believe the most dangerous scenario would be for us to drift out because our leaders have failed to see the gap in perceptions and expectations. Cameron is aware of that and so wants to address it head-on. I fear that any other outcome at the general election would leave that relationship as ambiguous as ever.
Denying the British people a say on our relationship with the EU in 2017 may just lead to further resentment and a messy divorce in the future.
Syed Kamall is Conserative MEP for London
