The Observer view on Britain and the EU

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/07/observer-view-on-britain-and-eu-editorial

Version 0 of 1.

There could hardly be a worse time for Britain to be demanding preferential treatment from the European Union. Yet that in effect is what David Cameron is doing as he pursues his ill-thought-out bid to renegotiate this country’s collective relationship with the other 27 member states ahead of a promised in-out referendum. In many key respects, Europe in 2015 is at a crossroads, as previously noted here. The problems and challenges it faces are numerous, serious and, in some cases, potentially existential. Cameron’s “reform agenda” should not be dismissed out of hand, but it arises from a narrow, national perspective. In the wider, deeply troubled context of contemporary Europe, it is barely relevant.

The basic difficulty is that what Cameron wants is both too little and too much. Too much because, for Angela Merkel, the German chancellor whose attitude to Britain’s demands will probably be decisive, the rolling crisis over Greece’s virtual bankruptcy is by far the most urgent issue facing Europe. A Greek exit from the euro appeared to moved closer last week when, setting an unfortunate precedent, Athens became the first developed country to miss a debt repayment to the IMF. The possible consequences for Europe’s economic stability and political and social coherence, should Greece default, are terrible to contemplate. Against this colossal backdrop, Cameron’s whingeing over welfare cheats sounds feeble.

Cameron wants too much because, as Joschka Fischer, Germany’s former foreign minister, suggests, Merkel cannot wholly be trusted. Her comforting assurances to Cameron in Berlin that a compromise can be found, and that related treaty change is not impossible, must be taken with a large pinch of salt. Cameron believed he had the German leader’s support over his opposition to last year’s appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission president, until he suddenly discovered he did not. “Angela Merkel will do nothing that will endanger the basic principles of the common market, of the EU,” Fischer warned and he is right. Like France and other leading powers, Germany wants Britain to stay in the EU. But if it decides not to do so, well…

Too much to ask because certain totemic EU red lines such as freedom of movement cannot and will not be jettisoned simply to allay Tory and Ukip immigration fears. Does Britain really want to become another Norway or Switzerland, marginalised, peripheral and lacking control over its destiny? Does Downing Street really understand what leaving the European Union would entail for jobs and businesses? The EU cannot be treated like a bazaar, where members bring shopping lists of opt-outs and bespoke deals. Nor does Cameron appear to have thought through the chilling impact a British withdrawal would have on its other special relationship, with the US.

More broadly speaking, Cameron’s irresponsible, weirdly self-destructive ultimatum is too much to swallow because, among other reasons, post-Crimea, post-Ukraine Europe faces incalculable threats along its eastern borders. Vladimir Putin would be only too happy to see Britain split and quit the EU. Too much, too, because, as this weekend’s G7 summit in Bavaria will underline, the post-crash challenges presented by the global economy, spreading Islamist terrorism, accelerating cross-border migration, climate change and failing US leadership all require a united European response. Yet, paradoxically perhaps, the momentous nature of these challenges also suggests what Cameron is asking for is actually too little, is too modest and unimaginative by far. And here a distinction must be drawn between genuine reform of the EU, which the prime minister claims to be seeking, and a series of limited, narrow demands dictated by a fragile Westminster power balance, which is actually all that this supposed renegotiation currently amounts to.

Temporary curbs on EU migrants claiming benefits, an opt-out from the “ever closer union” declaration and limits on unagreed changes to the single market are hardly a prescription for revolutionary change. Only with his suggestion that national parliaments have the right to club together to block new legislative proposals does Cameron come close to proposing a useful reform with possible pan-European appeal.

In other words, a great opportunity may be missed, one that, if he could only grasp it, could prospectively make Cameron the poster boy rather the bad boy of Europe. The results of last year’s European parliamentary elections showed massive, continent-wide disillusion with politics as usual in Brussels and Strasbourg. The continuing rise of protest parties, of left and right, from Italy to Finland, reveals a great yearning for credible reform. As Spain’s out-of-touch conservative government may soon be the latest to discover, grassroots pressure for anti-austerity policies rooted in social justice and economic opportunity, rather than the best interests of banks and markets, is massive and growing.

On the down side, the rise of nationalist, chauvinist and xenophobic minor groupings, such as the anti-Muslim Pegida movement in Germany, shows how dangerous and divisive can be failure by EU leaders to address the needs and fears of ordinary people. More than anything if it is to survive as a credible entity, the EU needs to respond to this popular uprising and channel the energy of protest and alienation into positive measures for change.

Cameron’s consultations in European capitals, far from eliciting the negative reactions that often characterised his first-term forays across the Channel, revealed a clear appetite for reformist ideas, although not necessarily his. Greater transparency and responsiveness, a less bureaucratic Brussels, greater emphasis on the aspirations of younger people, enhanced health and education provision, and yes, more constructive action to deal with unchecked migration – these are some of the building blocks of the new social contract Europe needs and which a pan-European reformist coalition of national governments could pursue.

There is no good reason why, in such a notional coalition, Britain should not aspire to be a leading light. To succeed in his renegotiation, win the referendum and re-establish Britain as a powerful player on the European stage, Cameron must persuade, not shout. He must build alliances and take initiatives in areas where Britain has expertise. He must make the case for Europe to the British people and take the fight for meaningful, popular, responsible reforms to the European mainstream.

Most of all, he must neither demand too much, nor attempt too little. The prize, wholly to Britain’s long-term economic and strategic advantage, is a stronger, better-functioning EU and a much-needed European renaissance.