It must be galling to be lectured by the Prime Minister of Belgium about the need for European unity and integration, when there is not the slightest sign of unity nor progress to any integration in Belgium itself. Yet, this is what British Prime Minister David Cameron had to endure during the lengthy negotiations about Britain’s future in the European Union (EU).
While some of Europe’s leaders, notably those from Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland, went out of their way to be helpful, others focused on protecting their own national interests or, in the case of the prime minister of Belgium, promoting the dream of continental unity, now not so much a vision as a ghost.
The grudging nature of such responses to Britain’s reasonable requests is one of the reasons the debate of the last 10 days within the Conservative Party has been so fierce: what to some is the successful result of a painstaking negotiating effort is to others a series of disappointing compromises that show Europe cannot be changed fundamentally. Some aspects of that debate are mere skirmishing: Arguments over which ministers can see what documents are dangerous because they can create lasting grievances, but they are tedious and irrelevant to the voters. Other aspects, such as the idea that a vote to leave the EU would shock the leaders of other countries into offering the United Kingdom an altogether better deal, are important. And here, the attitudes already shown by those leaders are instructive. The chances of the European Council gathering together after a British vote to leave the EU on June 23, and saying “we need Britain so much that we will now offer a completely different relationship to her while she stays in the EU” are zero.
The French Government, conscious that major treaty changes would require a referendum in France, would not give another inch. The German Government would say they could not be of further help. There is no possibility that all the other members would reach unanimous agreement on a revised package, because they simply would not have the collective cohesion and political will to do so. A British exit would undoubtedly be a grievous blow to the EU: The loss of the fifth largest economy in the world, the largest military budget in Europe, the biggest financial centre in the world and one of the biggest diplomatic networks would diminish it in the eyes of every foreign capital from Washington to Beijing. For that reason, none of the irritable-looking leaders who met in Brussels 10 days ago actually want us to leave, but that does not make them sufficiently willing, able or united to offer us something completely different. If the contribution of these leaders to Britain staying has so far not exactly been stellar, what could they do now to increase the chances of that happening and decrease the chances of their European Union starting to fall apart?
Their influence on the result will be very significant, not through any effort to tell us how to vote, but through the success or failure of what they do between now and the referendum. For the biggest risk to Cameron securing the result he has asked for is not Boris Johnson or Michael Gove, very talented though these old friends of mine are, but the possibility of four months of mounting crisis in the EU itself.
Discontent rising
The first thing Europe’s leaders need to do is to see the next explosion in the Eurozone coming and defuse it before it goes off. It is not difficult to see that the site of that explosion will once again be in Greece, where it has been plain all along that the last bailout deal was both financially and politically unsustainable. With the Greek economy refusing to recover, discontent rising and a government that doesn’t even believe in what it has been required to do, an intensified crisis is on its way. Last time a rescue was needed, the German finance minister prepared a plan for Greece to leave the euro. He and his colleagues should be dusting off that plan or else preparing a new bailout, rather than wait for a further destabilising emergency that will yet again rock confidence in the Eurozone.
Next, it is vital that a clear and agreed policy is found on the escalating migration crisis. One million migrants made it to Europe from the Middle East and North Africa last year, creating deep confusion, ruptured relations and barbed wire borders inside the EU. Millions more will now be contemplating making that journey, and the rational decision for them to make is that while such confusion reigns they should come soon. The current chaotic response — Germany welcoming migrants and others refusing to accept them — is thus not merely failing to deal with the problem but also making it much worse. It may be a humiliation for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to climb down and introduce tough limits on the numbers her country will take in, but without such a change even greater numbers will set off towards Europe and even more borders will be closed. If Europe could control the twin crises of the Eurozone and migration it would be in far better shape by the end of 2016. But if the EU could also find some strength and purpose in three other crucial matters it could achieve something positive at the same time. One of these is relations with Russia. Maintaining sanctions that punish Moscow for armed aggression in Ukraine is crucial for deterring more of the same behaviour in the future.
Yet already, France has been calling for such sanctions to be lifted. Strength in the face of violence is exactly what the EU should be for. Another is a trade deal with the US. As negotiations drag on, we need to hear the top officials of the European Commission extol the virtues of free trade, with enough enthusiasm and verve to impress whoever is the next president of the United States. And finally, the digital single market needs explaining and accelerating, bringing to hundreds of millions of people an open market in online purchases, with all the savings and efficiency that could result. If the EU showed it could do these things in the coming months it would do a great deal for its own future. It might even impress us. And in a referendum of competing fears, it could shine a tiny ray of hope.
— The Telegraph Group Limited, London, 2016
William Hague is the former foreign secretary and a former leader of the Conservative Party.
