Paterson’s EU strategy – leave first, ask questions later
Jonathan Lindsell, 25 November 2014
Yesterday former environment secretary Owen Paterson told Business for Britain his EU views. On the premise that the Eurozone will inevitably require greater integration until it becomes one effective country, Paterson argues the status quo is not an option: we will either be strong-armed into the Euro, or ‘they will leave us’.
Bearing this in mind, Paterson claimed bolder tactics should be taken in pursuing the Conservatives’ strategy of renegotiation and referendum. He contended that, if David Cameron wins a majority in 2015, he should immediately activate the Lisbon Treaty’s Article 50, notifying the EU of intention to leave. This article then allows a two-year window for hammering out ‘an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.’
Paterson argued this treaty-enforced exit negotiation was the best gambit for getting what the Conservatives want, as it would send other European states a clear message of intent, and because it’s cleaner and faster than an intergovernmental conference process or ‘everyday business’ reform, both of which could drag and are hard to quantify to the public. Formerly famous mainly for failing to kill badgers, Paterson endorsed the ‘Norway Model’ for a stripped-down, politics-free European relationship that retains access to the single market. (This is also known as the EFTA-EEA option). His assessment is thoughtful – he points out how Norway has more influence than Britain in many of the international standards-setting bodies (WTO, G20, IPPC, WHO, Basel etc.) that sets the global agenda before Brussels to write up.
However, Paterson’s tactic will raise eyebrows. Under his scenario, the 2017 referendum will cease to be between ‘reformed EU’ and ‘exit’, because we will have already left. Instead it will between the ‘Norway option’ (usually seen as ‘out’) and ‘EU re-entry’, which Paterson admits would probably mean re-entry without our current rebate, opt-outs or Euro immunity. It would, in other words, be a choice wherein one option is committing to a settlement of which even current pro-Europeans are deeply suspicious. They might argue Paterson was committing the same offence he often accuses Brussels of – acting without democratic legitimacy, leaving the EU without an express mandate.
Strategists in CCHQ may also dislike the plan. Cameron’s current argument is that no-one should go into a renegotiation assuming they won’t achieve success and have to leave. Paterson’s ploy also puts negotiations under huge time pressure, which might work for a Norwegian blueprint, but flounder if the Foreign Office aimed to limit migration. Norway has more EU migrants per capita than Britain.
Article 50 is usually seen as powder better hinted at, used as a threat, but kept dry unless either the EU’s other states refuse to seriously engage with reform, or later if the UK public clearly votes ‘Out’. Setting it off too early might terrify otherwise-cooperative European allies, forcing them to prepare contingencies and ‘red lines’ for actual Brexit rather than focussing attention on constructive EU-wide reform.
It isn’t actually clear the Eurozone will coalesce into a Berlin-dominated superstate. The inner core looked like it would in late 2012, but since then the ECB and Commission have proven adept at coercing insolvent states to reform, all without any additional treaty of unification. There are many new bodies to make the Euro robust – banking stress tests, the €500 billion Stability Mechanism, the Fiscal Compact. Dutch finance minister Jeroen Djisselbloem argues 80-90% of Eurozone integration can be done without treaty change, while pro-Europeans contend a ‘two-tier EU’ is possible, with states like Poland, Denmark and Britain protected, but allowing the Euro core to integrate further.
In that case, Paterson is jumping the gun. His proposal is certainly worth discussing, worth bearing in mind, but it’s too bold for the Prime Minister to endorse yet. The message that ‘Britain wants out’ would be too strong. However, a dynamic Tory grandee raising Article 50 as a serious option, immediately before Cameron makes his big migration speech, cannot hurt.
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is a poisoned chalice. It states
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. (http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html).
The OUT camp must make it clear that it would be both damaging and unnecessary for the UK to abide by this Treaty requirement. It would allow the EU to inflict considerable damage on the UK both during the period prior to formally leaving and afterwards if the price of leaving with the EU’s agreement was for UK to sign up to various obligations, for example, to continue paying a large annual sum to the EU for ten years . It would also give the Europhile UK political elite ample opportunity to keep the UK attached to the EU in the manner that Norway and Switzerland are attached. More of them later.
There is also the danger that the stay-in camp could use Article 50 to argue that whether the British people want to be in or out, the cost of leaving would be too heavy because of this treaty requirement.
The Gordian knot of Article 50 can be cut simply by passing an Act of Parliament repealing all the treaties that refer to the EU from the Treaty of Rome onwards. No major UK party could object to this because all three have, at one time or another, declared that Parliament remains supreme and can repudiate anything the EU does if it so chooses.
If the stay-in camp argue that would be illegal because of the treaty obligation, the OUT camp should simply emphasise (1) that international law is no law because there is never any means of enforcing it within its jurisdiction is a state rejects it and (2) that treaties which do not allow for contracting parties to simply withdraw are profoundly undemocratic because they bind future governments.
The OUT camp should press the major political parties to commit themselves to ignoring Article 50. If a party refuses that can be used against them because it will make them look suspicious.
Read more at https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/the-eu-inout-referendum-strategy-and-tactics-for-those-who-want-to-leave-the-eu/