Skip to main content

The problem of an "ever closer union"

If we do remain in the European Union, then it cannot be based on an "ever closer union".   One thing Brexit has done is alter the aspirations for Britain's membership of the Union forever, even if by some miracle we now decided to remain.

The "ever closer union" was at the heart of David Cameron's "negotiation" with the EU.  In a statement to the House of Commons he made clear this objective:

“we do not want to have our country bound up in an ever closer political union in Europe.”

An ever closer union has been precisely what the UK has signed up to time and time again.

During the 2016 referendum, it was often said by the Leave side that we only signed up to a Common Market in the referendum of 1975.  But this is disingenuous.   An "ever closer union" was incorporated into the preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome setting up the European Economic Community (common market):

"DÉTERMINÉS à établir les fondements d'une union sans cesse plus étroite entre les peuples européens"

It was never purely economic as often claimed.  It set out to be both economic and social:


" une action commune le progrès économique et social de leurs pays en éliminant les barrières qui divisent l'Europe,"


The countries of the EEC signed up to working in common to assure economic and social progress by eliminating the barriers that divided Europe.   Those barriers were considered to be both political and economic. 

When the UK eventually joined the EEC, it signed up to a project in progress, not merely a static set of arrangements.   The EEC was a work in progress.  It inevitably evolved into the European Union.  

But what does or should "ever closer union" mean?  

It does not in itself mean that European political institutions should merge into either a Federal State or a United States of Europe.  

Nevertheless, this is the direction the European Union was headed.   The Lisbon Treaty set out initially to be a formal constitutional arrangement, setting up many of the trappings of statehood, with its own representation as a Union in international affairs.  Voters are not fools; they see where that is heading.   Indeed, in Ireland, voters rejected the Treaty in its original form.  

Citizens in the United Kingdom were not given a similar opportunity despite promises that any such constitutional change would be put to them.   Instead, the government simply made the judgement that it was not a significant legal change. 

Some believe that this "sleight of hand" over Lisbon prepared the ground for the Brexit vote in 2016. 

It is often said that Prime Minister David Cameron achieved very little in his negotiations with EU partners. Primarily, that agreement sought to opt-out of the "ever closer union."  The agreement states:


“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”

This agreement featured little in the subsequent referendum.  I suspect most voters would have been unaware of it.   

In any event, it did little to assuage the fears of those who believe that the UK is wedded into the process.  To many, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.   Promises to exempt the UK in future Treaties would not be binding on future UK governments.   

Nor is it clear what "ever closer union" means.  It doesn't specify any specific organisational structure from which Britain would "opt-out".   

This made it difficult to sell in the referendum, which was not about the deal struck by Cameron but was a simple in/out decision.  In this case,  Cameron's agreement was not put to the British people. 

The weakness of Cameron's agreement is demonstrated by a simple question; which EU institutions would we opt out of and why?  

If we do remain in the EU, we will still have to address the issues of an "ever closer union". 






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As