Recent comments by Philip Gordon, the US assistant secretary for European affairs in the Obama administration, were pounced upon by opponents of the Euro-realist debate as evidence of the dangerousness of questioning the UK’s problems in Europe and twisted to make it sound like the UK should shun the EU and sit in glorious isolation.
Gordon stated that the UK’s voice “…within the European Union is essential and critical to the United States…we value a strong UK voice in a strong European Union.” Gordon thus stated that the US wants the UK to maintain its influence in the EU.
And there are few people who would argue with that. It is a rational and sensible position to work with our neighbours in Europe, and to work with the rest of the world. War, conflict and bad relations are in no-one’s interest, and as such, the UK (hopefully) will not turn to Europe and say “we’ve had enough of you, we’re leaving”, but instead, using diplomacy and manners, “let’s find a new relationship that accommodates our joint interests, and one that allows Europe to go in the direction it wants, without dragging unhappy members with it, but which benefits everyone”. Talk of ‘blocking negotiations to ‘blackmail’ the EU into getting what we want are not helpful starting points: no parliament can bind its successors, so the UK remains sovereign and does not need to adopt a hostile position to the EU.
New relations
Maybe such a new relationship would leave the UK as a member of Europe; maybe it would involve the UK formally leaving; or maybe we would sit in the EU but in an outside ‘overtaking’ lane. What is clear is that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a duty to ensure that relations are as strong as possible with Europe, to ensure Britain’s interests. Influence comes from trust and ability, not from squabbling and infighting.
Know thyself
It is important though that the UK defines clearly what it can share with Europe, and what it cannot. For example, on the issue of defence, Britain clearly needs flexibility. Philip Gordon tried to calm fears that Britain’s membership of the EU might restrict cooperation with sensitive US military projects, stating that our ‘special relationship’ with the US always will exist. However, the view of the Obama administration might not translate into cooperation in the House of Representatives or the Senate. In Congress, concerned Senators might block Britain’s involvement in important defence contracts precisely because of our involvement in Europe.
We must also recognise that, without Britain, European military capabilities are essentially French. As such, the UK is in a position of strength to negotiate in this field: we can find a settlement that protects our cooperation with the United States, but also enables us to work with the ever-more-integrated European armies.
Such a move would be a lifeline to NATO also. At present, the EU is simply making it redundant, by duplicating all it does on the ground and in the Treaties. Yet should the UK be in a new position of valued neighbour, NATO could be the framework in which the EU, UK and US come together to cooperate.
In terms of Foreign Policy, the UK should be free to pursue trading relationships that do not cater to the protectionist demands of French farmers. Our global links with the Commonwealth should be the first port of call, tapping into the rich potential of Africa and India. But we also need to be free to cooperate with Russia and China, not on the basis of ideology written in a Treaty, but on the basis of national self interest.
One good accommodation would be to generally adopt EU law as now, to ensure alignment with the large continental market, but to ensure that, when the red-tape becomes ridiculous, after much debate and serious discussion; British courts can override EU law.
Naive
Despite Gordon’s well-meaning comments, there was an element of naivety being shown. The Democrats have bought the Left’s idealist view of Europe, and the belief in Treaties and the rule of international law (“…The more the European Union is focused on its internal debates, the less it's able to be our unified partner abroad"…), and as such, the US will be vulnerable to the realpolitik and the knife that will eventually be planted by Brussels in Washington’s back.
Resentment at American influence and politics, the rise and rise of English as the global language, and the equating of globalisation largely with American brands and companies, has left many in Europe feeling uncomfortable. American diplomacy abroad and the holding of more traditional values at home has also exposed a gulf between anchorless Europe and deep US belief.
The Obama administration has also bought the myth of British influence in the European Union. The growing use of qualified majority voting and reduction in veto powers within Europe has led to a diminishing of Britain’s power to shape and influence Europe’s direction. Coupled with this, EU legislation and law is all initiated by the Europhiles in the European Commission, and Member States are more or less presented at the end with decisions that they have less and less input into. Decision making in the Council of Ministers has at times been reduced to the farcical, with translations of what is being discussed only delivered after the vote was taken, leaving member states’ representatives casting yes votes for the previous subject under discussion in the next vote in which they wanted to vote no!
Thus the idea of a “…strong British voice in that European Union…” is a fallacy, and it is best for the UK, US and EU to work together where we have joint interests, and to pursue our separate ways when these do not coincide.
