B2 The Daily of Geopolitical Europe. News. Files. Reflections. Reports

Blog AnalysisEU Defense (Doctrine)European policy

A few lessons from the last summit: buttons the English out of the EU?

(BRUSSELS2) The British isolation so feared by some, or hoped for by others, seems real today. But that's no surprise. Rather than isolation, one could rather speak of a slow detachment. However, we cannot claim victory. Being "rid" of British reluctance does not solve everything. The agreement obtained on December 9 is based on a logic that is too intergovernmental to be completely "honest". It relies on legal weaknesses that could be used. And it only responds very partially to the shortcomings observed during the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty and to the challenges of the current crisis.

Britons misunderstood or who no longer understand 

The British who had always managed to slip their shoe into the door of Europe, by blocking certain developments or by accelerating certain ones on the contrary, seem to have lost their magic touch. It seems that David Cameron's government no longer really understands the evolution of the continent. Rapid evolution, it is true. In a few years, minds have changed. In the early 2000s when the British managed to drag behind them a number of countries in a spirit of weak integration and continuous enlargement or in delicate military operations (Iraq) seems to be over.

Today, there has been a clear evolution. First, eastern enlargement did not bring additional troops to the UK, as some had feared or hoped. On the contrary. Little by little, each of the countries concerned has regained its continental place. The renegotiation of the financial framework for the following period (2014-2020) showed the new entrants that their interest was not always on the British side. The recent exit of Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, is significant in this respect. It consists of a vibrant attack on the British position. Yet the man is not a priori hostile. He was bottle-raised in London and is quite a 'liberal' at heart.

This British isolation is not the first either. In July, the British thus found themselves on their own, or almost (with the only Latvian reserve), on the creation of a European headquarters for the conduct of military operations and had to veto it in good and due form. 7 years ago, it was France, Germany, with Belgium and Luxembourg as the only supporters who found themselves thus isolated.

The moment of truth

(credit: Parliament TV)

In London began a delicate part of explanations for the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who will have to demonstrate that he did everything to defend British interests - the only message that finds favor across the Channel - and that he did not on the contrary cause the flag of his gracious majesty to lose influence. A moment of truth that has already begun with his government ally the Liberals and Democrats of Nick Clegg. Before the House of Commons today (December 12), he had quite simply chosen not to be present on the government benches.

This British non-participation removes the taboo on a central question: the place of the United Kingdom within the European Union, is it outside or inside? This question was already significant in the British political debate. But it is beginning to make its way into certain European public opinions. Several European commentators like my colleague Jean Quatremer (Liberation) or Professor Mario Telo (ULB) did not hide their joy after the summit. The "Buttons English off the continent" could become a slogan on the continent. And the example of the December 9 agreement could bring about a certain emancipation...

The work and place of the British commissioner, Catherine Ashton (also High Representative of the EU), will not be any easier. Personally rather pro-European, with a head of government inclined to give Eurosceptics pledges, but disagreeing with a Deputy Prime Minister, it is rather the big gap. Ditto in terms of positioning on the follow-up to be given to the agreement. Will she defend the community institution in the London way (this must be reserved for projects at 27 and not for the Euro zone) or in the Brussels way (find a pragmatic way to progress at 26)? Incidentally, it is remarkably piquant to see the roles thus reversed: the British government posing as a great defender of the Community institutions. 🙂

An intergovernmental logic

However, the Europeans without the British are not saved. The agreement concluded on December 9 will take the form of an intergovernmental agreement and not a community agreement. A logic that corresponds very well to the spirit of Nicolas Sarkozy. It is a constant with the French leader. When he was Minister of the Interior, he was the specialist in these meetings a few before EU meetings (the "G5" bringing together his German, Spanish, British and Italian counterparts). His speech in Toulon clearly attests to this. " Europe will rebuild itself by pragmatically learning the lessons of the crisis. (...) European integration will take place through intergovernmentalism because Europe will have to make strategic choices, political choices. »

The next battle will be legal

The agreement approved by the Council on December 9 contains many imperfections. And lawyers will now be able to "tear their hair out" - as one diplomat told me - to translate this into legal terms. The use of community structures (European Court of Justice, European Commission) for the application of a governmental agreement as well as the role of the European Parliament are still rather vague.

The threat of a referral by the United Kingdom to the Court of Justice to have this agreement annulled is not excluded. Prime Minister David Cameron even mentioned it publicly before his Parliament on Monday (December 12). This treaty is outside the European Union, it cannot deal with subjects that are in the European Union (such as financial regulation). The British have good lawyers; they have shown this in the past, in particular by having several European social programs cancelled. A potential cancellation of part of the agreement is not excluded. Which would put down part of the construction of the last summit.

The flaws of the Maastricht Treaty

The agreement also shows, 20 years later, that the Maastricht Treaty was truly incomplete. Having refused to go as far as political union, the single currency did not resist its first "real" crisis. The following treaties did not manage to make up for this flaw, concentrating on altogether peripheral subjects - the reduction in the size of the Commission, the distribution of votes within the Council -... rather than tackling the substance. It is to be feared that the same will apply to the "fiscal compact" adopted on 9 December. This focuses solely on a few budgetary criteria (golden rule of a maximum deficit of 0,5% per year, automatic sanctions, etc.). It does not provide any element for growth, for economic recovery, for a "stronger economic union" as stated in the objectives of this new Treaty.

Read also:

Nicolas Gros Verheyde

Chief editor of the B2 site. Graduated in European law from the University of Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne and listener to the 65th session of the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. Journalist since 1989, founded B2 - Bruxelles2 in 2008. EU/NATO correspondent in Brussels for Sud-Ouest (previously West-France and France-Soir).

s2Member®