Cameron’s vision for the future of Europe

The UK’s prime minister is seeking to re-frame debate about British membership of the European Union as a call for the EU to change its vision of itself.

David Cameron’s speech on the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union promised an ‘in-out’ referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU, but postponed such a vote until after the next general election and perhaps until the shape of a post-crisis eurozone is clearer.

He framed his speech as a contribution to a particularly British debate about Europe, and he asked for the forbearance of others. But he also argued that the British debate should become a European debate about the future of the EU.

“I say to our European partners, frustrated as some of them no doubt are by Britain’s attitude: work with us on this.”

The joint “work” should be partly to keep the UK in the EU – “the EU should want us to stay” – but, above all, on reform of the EU itself. A debate that is essential in the UK should be viewed by the EU as a necessity and an opportunity for itself, he suggested.

But to make a plausible call to the EU to engage in debate and in reform, Cameron needed to address some questions: Why was he making this speech in the midst of the eurozone’s crisis, and calling now for a referendum? What is his vision for the EU? How would he like the EU to be reformed? And – finally – how wholeheartedly does he want to the UK to be part of the EU?

Why this speech now?

Cameron gave a seven-part explanation for initiating a far-reaching debate the UK’s place in Europe in the midst of the eurozone crisis:

1 The EU is changing… “The future shape of Europe is being forged.”

2 …but it is not yet clear that it is changing in the right direction… “More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the eurozone”.

3 …and it is not carrying the public with it. The British public feels “a lack of democratic accountability and consent…particularly acutely”.

4 A referendum is the right response for Britain… It is better to confront the issue than “simply hoping a difficult situation will go away”.

Click Here: cheap nrl jerseys

5 …and a referendum is better sooner rather than later… “It is much more likely that the British people will reject the EU” eventually if they are not given a choice soon.

6 …but before a referendum, Britain needs to know what the EU will be… “How can we sensibly answer the question ‘in or out’ without being able to answer the most basic question: ‘what is it exactly that we are choosing to be in or out of?’”

7 …and try to reform it. “It is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right.”

What should a reformed Union be like?

Cameron identified three challenges facing the EU. Firstly, how it changes in response to the eurozone crisis. Secondly, how it changes to compete in the global market. And, thirdly, how it narrows the gap between itself and its citizens.

His answer was that the EU should change its vision of itself. “We believe in a flexible union of free member states who share treaties and institutions and pursue together the ideal of co-operation” he said. “This vision of flexibility and co-operation is not the same as those who want to build an ever closer political union – but it is just as valid.”

His vision was, he suggested, more in keeping with the realities of the EU: the “essential foundation” of the European Union is, he argued, “the single market rather than the single currency”.

The principles of reform

Cameron argued that the EU should be guided in its reforms by five principles:

1 Competitiveness.

“When the single market remains incomplete in services, energy and digital – the very sectors that are the engines of a modern economy – it is only half the success it could be.”

2 Flexibility.

“The EU must be able to act with the speed and flexibility of a network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc.”

3 Repatriation of powers.

“Power must be able to flow back to member states, not just away from them….This was promised by European leaders at Laeken a decade ago. It was put in the [Lisbon] treaty [of 2009]. But the promise has never really been fulfilled.”

4 Democratic accountability.

“There is not…a single European demos. It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.”

5 Fairness.

“Whatever new arrangements are enacted for the eurozone, they must work fairly for those inside it and out.”

The prescription for reform

Cameron asked the EU to reform itself and set out what should guide those reforms. But he gave few specifics, in part because the British government is currently reviewing what powers it would like to be repatriated.

Cameron did, however, set out three institutional problems that he believed need to be addressed: “sclerotic, ineffective decision-making”, a “huge number of expensive peripheral European institutions”, and a lack of focus on “controlling spending and shutting down programmes that haven’t worked”.

The case for UK membership

Cameron said he would campaign to stay within a reformed EU “with all my heart and soul”. So what arguments would he put so wholeheartedly to the British public?

1 Geographical realities.

“If we leave the EU, we cannot of course leave Europe.”

2 The EU is important.

“Decisions made in the EU would continue to have a profound effect on our country.”

3 Prosperity.

“Continued access to the single market is vital for British businesses and British jobs.”

4 British influence in Europe.

The alternatives to membership are poor. Norway and Switzerland have no say in setting the single market’s rules, and Switzerland has to “negotiate access to the single market sector by sector”.

5 British influence in the world.

“We are more powerful in Washington, in Beijing, in Delhi because we are a powerful player in the European Union.”

6 Prudence.

“If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return.” Not liking the rules of the club is not a reason to leave the club “– not if the benefits of staying and working together are greater”.