The Pro-European Illustration For A Renegotiation Of Together With Plebiscite On The Uk’S Membership Of The Eu

By Steve Peers

The Prime Minister, lacking a bulk inwards the House of Commons, is harried past times his Eurosceptic backbenchers. He promises a renegotiation of the UK’s membership of the EU, followed past times a plebiscite on whether to remain in. It’s 2014 – but it’s also 1975.

That renegotiation in addition to plebiscite ultimately resulted inwards a landslide vote inwards favour of staying inwards the EU. While the circumstances are different inwards roughly respects inwards 2014, in that location is a potent illustration for repeating this process.

The declaration for a plebiscite on the European Union has so far been made either past times those who are opposed to the UK’s membership of it (UKIP), or equally a concession to those backbenchers who are highly critical of it (the Conservative party). On the other hand, it has been resisted past times those who are nigh inwards favour of the EU.

In that light, the role of this postal service is two-fold: (a) to brand a pro-European illustration for a plebiscite in addition to (b) to depict precisely how the UK should renegotiate its membership beforehand.

The pro-European illustration for a plebiscite

The illustration for a plebiscite on European Union membership should stand upward on its own, in addition to should non live on seen equally a defensive reaction to the results of the nigh recent European Parliament elections.

First in addition to foremost, since 1975 in that location take away maintain been v major Treaty amendments, equally good equally substantial enlargement of the EU. The political in addition to economical circumstances of the country, in addition to the European Union equally a whole, take away maintain clearly changed. There is thus a principled declaration for allowing the voters to give their fresh consent (or not) for these developments.  

Secondly, the continued pro-European rejection of a plebiscite has made it possible for critics of the European Union to characterise pro-Europeans equally anti-democratic. Of course, it tin live on argued inwards answer that representative commonwealth is also a valid shape of democracy, 1 alongside longer in addition to deeper roots inwards British political culture, in addition to that the UK Independence Party has never (at to the lowest degree to date) won a unmarried topographic point inwards the House of Commons. But inwards low-cal of the growing tradition to determine of import constitutional questions past times pop referendum, that counter-argument has diminishing force. After all, voters cast their vote at full general elections for many reasons also their persuasion on membership of the EU.

More broadly, pro-European opposition to a plebiscite makes it hold off equally if pro-Europeans do non take away maintain the courage of their convictions. If the European Union is, equally they say, such a adept affair for the UK, why fright a pop vote on it? In fact, on several occasions, pro-Europeans have promised a plebiscite on roughly human face of the EU, in addition to so evidently (if non technically) reneged on their promise. This gives the impression that pro-Europeans cannot live on trusted, in addition to so leads roughly voters to query the honesty of their arguments. The longer that pro-Europeans resist the illustration for a referendum, the to a greater extent than that these negative impressions volition grow. Put simply, the pro-European resistance to an in/out plebiscite is sure damaging the pro-European cause.

While Labour in addition to the Liberal Democrats take away maintain promised an in/out referendum, this would only bring house inwards the lawsuit of a novel Treaty transferring powers from the UK to the EU. While it is possible that in that location volition live on negotiations for Treaty amendments inwards the adjacent few years, it is inconceivable that those parties would concur to the transfer of fresh powers from the UK to the European Union inwards that context. So that plebiscite hope is meaningless. The Labour in addition to Liberal Democrat topographic point is similar promising that if I had a gender activity change, I would remain married to my wife. But I’m non going to larn a gender activity change.

In whatsoever event, the real offering of an in/out referendum, fifty-fifty  if the weather for it to live on held are unlikely always to live on satisfied, undermines the logic of the arguments against having such a referendum.

It must live on emphasised that the illustration for a plebiscite is non-partisan: advocating a plebiscite does non necessarily hateful supporting British withdrawal from the EU, or supporting whatsoever other policy espoused past times the Conservative party.  

So the pro-European answer to calls for a plebiscite should no longer live on to observe an excuse non take away maintain one, to hope 1 in addition to renege on that promise, or to hope 1 that volition never live on held.  It should be, simply: Bring it on.

Renegotiation of UK membership

Before examining the details of renegotiation, 1 critical dominion must live on laid downwardly at the outset. Any renegotiation topographic point must avoid insisting upon Treaty amendment, or upon a alter inwards European Union constabulary which necessarily involves Treaty amendment (such equally consummate UK command over the gratis displace of persons). That’s because a Treaty amendment volition live on far to a greater extent than hard to achieve, inwards exceptional if it becomes jump upward alongside other possible amendments to the Treaties concerning other issues. Those who need that such renegotiation positions (such equally total command over the gratis displace of persons) should live on a ‘red line’ are essentially dishonest. If that number is crucially of import to them, they should instead telephone phone for UK withdrawal of the EU, alongside all of the consequences which that entails.

In fact, dorsum inwards 1975, other Member U.S. of A. agreed to a renegotiation consisting of amendments to European Union secondary legislation, in addition to the British populace ultimately accepted that deal. Again, it would live on possible today to address many of the issues arising from the UK’s membership of the European Union past times amending secondary legislation. Indeed, Jean-Claude Piris recently argued that the negotiation demands get down past times David Cameron could all live on addressed past times amendment of secondary European Union legislation.

As discussed inwards a previous post, this is correct. However, in that location is a opportunity that the critics of the European Union would non live on exclusively satisfied past times it. The improve strategy is thus to aim for an intermediate course: inwards conjunction alongside amendments to European Union secondary legislation, in that location should live on a decision of the European Union Heads of State in addition to Government, coming together inside the European Council, which constitutes the EU’s answer to the renegotiation request.

Such Decisions take away maintain been adopted inwards the past, equally regards previous post discussing the electrical flow limits on expelling persons next unemployment and/or requests for social assistance.

Section C

Powers of national parliaments

The Heads of State in addition to Government bring Federal Reserve annotation of the Commission’s line of piece of work solid commitment that, edifice upon the Protocols on national parliaments in addition to on subsidiarity in addition to proportionality attached to the Treaties, it volition withdraw whatsoever proposal which is opposed past times one-third of Member States’ parliaments.

Section D

Economic reform

The Heads of State in addition to Government [make specific commitments equally regards gratis merchandise agreements in addition to amendments to European Union legislation, or lift to such agreements in addition to treaties which take away maintain already been agreed].  

Section E

Policing in addition to criminal law

The Heads of State in addition to Government reaffirm the United Kingdom’s sovereign ability non to opt inwards to proposals for novel legislation on criminal constabulary or policing pursuant to the Protocols attached to the Treaties, in addition to the provisions of the Treaties which take away honour for the national identity in addition to legal organization of every Member State.

They confirm their potent back upward for the ongoing procedure of reform of the organization established past times the European Convention on Human Rights.

Note: if the procedure of ECHR reform is completed earlier the UK renegotiation of its European Union membership, in that location could live on a to a greater extent than specific commitment to give effect to the results of that process, for illustration ratifying a novel protocol to the ECHR.

Section F

Reduction of European Union competences

The Heads of State in addition to Government reaffirm that In accordance alongside Article 48 TEU, the competences conferred upon the Union tin live on reduced. In accordance alongside Articles 2 in addition to iv TFEU, the European Union tin select to do its competences less intensively inwards those areas where it shares competence alongside its Member States.

Note: this could live on accompanied past times specific commitments to repeal or cut the reach of roughly existing European Union legislation.

Section G

‘Ever Closer Union’

The Heads of State in addition to Government confirm that the commitment inwards the Treaties to ‘ever closer union’ has no specific legal effect. It does non take away that farther competences live on conferred upon the Union, or that the Union must do its existing competences. Nor, inwards accordance alongside Section D, does it constrain the Member U.S. of A. from adopting Treaty amendments which cut the Union’s competences, or constrain the Union from choosing to do its competences less intensively.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 2, chapter 5, chapter 13, chapter 25

Share this post