Especially for EU
pete quentin, 10 September 2008
Valery Giscard d’Estaing explored the idea that Britain should be offered a ‘special status’ within the EU at a conference held in Westminster on Monday, writes Laura Kelleher. The former French President and author of the EU constitution reaffirmed his commitment to European integration, but suggested that British opt-out clauses should take the form of a ‘special status’ in future.
The conference, held by Global Vision and the Daily Telegraph, heard Giscard d’Estaing propose a ‘United Europe’ in which Britain’s special status is recognised.
Here is a summary of some of the key points raised by Giscard d’Estaing;
1) Britain has a ‘contradictory’ relationship with the EU
Giscard d’Estaing spoke of the ‘contradictory signals’ which Britain has sent the EU during its membership. He pointed out that although Britain has negotiated and ratified all EU treaties, EU membership was often portrayed in debates as a ‘legal straitjacket’.
2) Britain’s ‘opt-outs’ should be formalized as a ‘special status’
Britain has negotiated a number of opt-outs in the past such as those on EMU, the Schengen Agreement and the Fundamental Charter of Human Rights. These opt-outs he suggested should perhaps in future form the basis of a ‘special status’ for Britain within the EU.
3) A ‘special status’ for Britain is not synonymous with a ‘two-speed Europe’
Giscard d’Estaing warned against a ‘two-speed Europe’ which would lead to ‘an acrimonious dislocation from the system’. He argued that ‘special status’ for Britain would allow integration to progress, without compromising the interests of either Britain or those member states which are committed to further integration.
4) The Lisbon Treaty is essentially the same as the failed Constitutional Treaty
Giscard d’Estaing admitted that the Lisbon Treaty was a ‘rewriting of the Constitutional Treaty’ with very few amendments. He also said that the Lisbon Treaty had been ‘coated in legalese’ by the Council’s legal representation, which had made it ‘unreadable’.
Giscard d’Estaing’s proposals are firmly rooted in his desire for a closer political union. In formally acknowledging Britain’s unique relationship with the EU, he hopes that further integration will become, if not easier, then at the very least more achievable. The panel discussion, which followed Giscard d’Estaing’s speech, seemed to welcome this pragmatic approach to Britain’s relationship with the EU.
The conference provided a welcome opportunity to assess and examine Britain’s relationship with the EU. In short, a self-confessed ‘pro-European Frenchman’ in a room full of self-confessed ‘British Eurosceptics’ perfectly demonstrated the need for a full debate on Britain’s relationship with Europe.
Whether or not we should embrace Giscard’s plan depends on a number of considerations. First, do we have the option of an independence even greater than that which Giscard proposes? Second, do we leave the rest of Europe to its Franco-German fate? Third, will Europe as a whole be better off or worse as a heavily regulated bloc?
To the first question, I think the answer is probably no. Let us bear in mind the current fragility of the United Kingdom. Would flouncing suddenly out of Europe “tout court” not tear Scotland away from us? To those purist Liberals who are cheered by this prospect, I recommend a little prudence. Half an island – a mere rump state – would hardly command the authority in the world that its inhabitants are used to. Therefore, we should take up the Giscard plan with alacrity. It will offer a large degree of freedom from interference in financial policy and allow for the maintenance of our own legal and political traditions. Moreover, if the global financial system continues in its current parlous state for long, then some form of attachment to “Europe” is perhaps advisable for now.
As to Europe as a whole, we are not responsible. The Christian/Social democrat compromise has emerged from the continent’s history and appears to suit the temperament and condition of its people. A semi-independent Britain may, in any case, inspire others to aim for the same status.
Most cynically, there is no reason for believing that the Giscard half-way house need detain us for ever. Over all, it could be the wisest plan to ease ourselves out of Europe.
De Gaulle tried to warn this country that it was incompatible with the spirit of continental politics. He was doing us a service. Should we not now, after so much bitter experience, pay heed to his one-time successor and head – gracefully and without hurry or fuss – for the half way stage to the exit?
I agree with HJ; the politicians vision of Europe. Is at loggerheads with the voters view of Europe, and while the masters in Brussels refuse to aknowledge this, then the greater the rift between the two.
The Unknown truth about EU: A British public servant wrote about political Europe: how it would develop, its character and future prospects before Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman – were born in 1888 and 1886. The Lisbon Treaty paves the way for his prediction about the dark future of Europe to fulfilled. He warned Britain not to join. It was not by accident tyat Ireland rejectted the Lisbon Treaty. The Unknown Briton was a native of Ireland. He did not expect Ireland to join.
Britain must withdraw. The EU – according the seer, would collapse
D’Estaing’s argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that most of Europe is in favour of his ‘vision’ for Europe and that it is only the British that are not.
This is an entirely false assumption as, where voters have actually been asked, they have voted against his vision. His vision is what the ruling ‘elite’ of a small group of European countries want, not what most Europeans want.