Civitas Blog

Syed Kamall is a Conservative MEP for London, first elected to the European Parliament (EP) in May 2005. He sits on the Committee on International Trade and is a substitute member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice & Home Affairs. He also sits on the Conservative Party’s Globalisation and Global Poverty working group and is an associate of the Centre for Social Justice.

A liberalised Europe would be a Europe that guarantees law and basic human freedoms but without overly interfering (e.g. not pursuing legislation such as that proposed for European policing), and a Europe that is open to the world.

To be liberal is to understand that nations’ governments operate differently, can learn from each other, and that power must reside as close as possible to the individual. When the UK voted in the 1975 referendum it voted on the issue of the Common Market, not for an increasingly politicised union. The EU claims, through creating the Single Market, that it holds the means of creating a liberal Europe. Yet in reality it pursues a continuous ‘harmonisation’ – a socialist tool for undermining a liberal Europe.

The most recent example of this is the mobile phone roaming charges legislation, which goes so far as to set prices. I used to work in telecommunications and appreciate that firms will inevitably restructure their business models. The consequence of this legislation will be higher prices for the 65% of consumers who do not roam, for the sake of the elite (MEPs?!) who frequently do. Legislation should be a last resort tool to correct market flaws, not for ‘boundary setting’.

In addition the EU presents much of its legislation as deregulatory, but in reality they frequently result in increased legislation, and worse, most is poorly linked-up to the existing regulation. For example, the EU wants to ban the sale of non-environmentally friendly lightbulbs, yet at the same time maintains a 50% tariff on Chinese energy efficient bulbs. Energy efficient bulbs also contain mercury, which the EU is currently trying to ban! The EU needs to understand: the best regulation is less regulation.

We must always remember that there is a world outside Europe. But unfortunately, in relation to trade, the EU can only move as fast as the most protectionist state… France. Nicolas Sarkozy recently suggested that ‘the EU is a Trojan horse for globalisation’ – we only wish it was! Protectionism merely protects the inefficient companies and industries of Europe, and has never created a single job. The EU Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, is actually ‘broadly sympathetic’ to free trade, except in agriculture, but he is too weak to resist leaders such as Sarkozy.

So, is the solution to retrench ourselves from Europe? It may seem attractive to some, but it also holds risks. Businesses trading with Europe could not be sure when they might suffer from additional tariffs etc. and politically the UK could appear to become isolated, or supplicant to the US. Economically, the UK could potentially lose the dominant position of its financial markets.

However, I do not subscribe to any doomsday scenarios of withdrawal because trade continues as a private activity beyond states. I would prefer to remain in the EU, pushing for reform from within. I suggest the following:

·Focus on ensuring a referendum on any new EU treaty.
·Establish what ‘ever closer union’ really means and communicate this fully to the British electorate.
·Recover the power for Westminster to amend EU legislation and, at the very least, incorporate ‘sunset clauses’ in EU regulation. Denmark acts as something of a precedent for this, having retained the power to scrutinise EU law prior to its adoption.
·Create a post of De-regulation Commissioner as a voice for liberalism in the EU.
·Encourage more genuinely free market European think-tanks to re-locate to Brussels.

We cannot afford to continue with a centralised, inwardly looking Europe when the world wants us to engage.

Question & Answers:

Douglas Carswell MP suggested the UK would do better to withdraw from the EU, prove its liberal credentials (in doing so demonstrating the benefits of following such an agenda) and reform the EU from outside.

Stuart Gulleford (UKIP) suggested pushing for reform within was an illusion, no power has ever been repatriated to member states and too many areas are now decided by QMV.

Lord Tebbit reminded delegates ‘it is not guaranteed we will always have a genuinely liberal UK government’. Presumptions underlying law are also very different on the continent: UK government makes law but rights are inherent, in Europe laws are thought of as necessary for establishing those rights. He suggested we should be drawing up our own treaty for a European ‘family’, without resisting those members which decide to enter a federal state, but most importantly pre-determining what our relationship with that state will be.

Ruth Lea stated that Global Vision had been established along similar lines: to push for a ‘looser relationship’ (as wanted by 51% of their survey respondents). She then pointed out that there are other groups throughout the member states hoping for a ‘reconfiguration of Europe – we are not alone’.

Syed Kamall responded by stating that he has sympathy with such ideas, but as yet no UK politicians (or political parties) have genuinely been tough enough in resisting the opposition from Brussels to repatriating powers to member states, or robust enough in defence of a reformist agenda. Support for such an agenda is also growing in some new member states, e.g. Czech Republic and Poland. Ironically it could also come from the more pro-EU states, which would be freed to pursue their own goals of a United States of Europe, without the ‘drag’ of the less willing member states. As regards setting an example of a liberal agenda, there will always be claims in Europe that the UK is ‘an exception’ (e.g. due to its strong financial services sector).

Robert Moreland, a former Conservative MEP, said that Europe is a more liberal market now than 30 years ago, largely due to the EU and the SEA etc. What is needed however is the rolling back of the Social Chapter and labour market legislation.

Dominic Brett, a member of the European Commission’s Outreach group, stated that if we want free trade we must secure it via our position within the EU. Moreover, it is not the Commission that is inherently regulatory but rather the ‘goldplating’ in Westminster that is the problem. In any case, much regulation is not aimed at preventing free trade or against any liberal principle, rather to protect the consumer. The current Commission is, in fact, the most liberal ever. The problems under discussion are valid but the remedies are to be found within the EU and not outside it, or indeed from a looser relationship.

Syed Kamall responded saying he felt he had been fair to the Commission and had given it some credit, for example for attempting to liberalise the market in energy and services, but that there is still a mass of unnecessary regulation emanating from it. It has a self-interest in creating new law. Back to roaming charges for example, it is not the place of politicians or bureaucrats to decide the price of phone calls.

Lord Tebbit concluded the discussion by noting previous UK negotiators’ thoughts on EU legislation – ‘beware Greeks demanding gifts’. States will only offer their vote if they are given a (most probably) unrelated sweetener and suggested that this is very unlikely to change.

Many thanks to Syed Kamall for participating in the event and all those who attended.