• Facebook
  • Facebook
  • Facebook
  • Facebook

Search This Blog

Visit our new website.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Go local

Today we publish a report, written by ex-head of Policy Exchange Anthony Browne and our Director Mats Persson, suggesting a fresh EU strategy for the UK government - European localism. In yesterday's Sunday Times, we trailed the piece, arguing:
"closer union cannot continue for ever. In some ways the EU is already more centralised than a country — individual American states have more freedom over sales tax than do EU members. And what was right 50 years ago is not necessarily right now. When challenges change, so should institutions.

The euro crisis has tested to destruction the principle of ever closer union — its momentum required Greece to join the euro when it was not ready, directly leading to turmoil. As the crisis has unfolded, the debate has moved to an existential question: what kind of Europe do Europeans want?"

We go on to say:

"Popular support for the EU has plummeted even in the countries that were once most supportive and national parliaments have grown restive because their powers are being usurped. The euro crisis is also forcing Europe to develop a more variable approach to co-operation, with countries integrating at different speeds.

The EU is ripe for change and this presents Britain with an opportunity to push forward its own strategy — which we call European localism. Since it joined in 1973 Britain has never shared the strategic vision of ever closer union, but nor has it had an alternative strategy of its own. As a result it has remained disengaged from Brussels, focusing on defensive tactics limiting the perceived damage of European legislation, rather than trying to steer the direction of the EU. This is an unsatisfactory position."

But, we argue, in the wake of the crisis,

"Britain can position itself as the champion of European localism, taking the principles and rhetoric of localism widely endorsed at a national level and applying them at a European level. The same arguments apply: if you devolve where possible and centralise only where necessary, you get better democratic engagement, more flexibility and better policy making."

As we note in our press release, in terms of concrete proposals, this would include:
  • Parliament should be given the right to approve the UK appointment of judges to the European Court of Justice, to hear their views on European integration, just as Congress approves presidential appointments to the Supreme Court in the US;
  • The Government should consider taking the European Commission to the European Court of Justice for breaches of subsidiarity, the legal principle underpinning localism that is now enshrined as a founding principle of the EU in the Lisbon Treaty;
  • The role of national parliaments should be strengthened by a new “red card” mechanism, whereby if two thirds – or in particularly sensitive areas, half – of national parliaments express concerns about EU legislation or European Court of Justice rulings, then the EU would have to abandon legislation or overturn the ruling;
  • The UK Parliament should work with other national parliaments to set up an “Inter-parliamentary Task Force on Localism”, acting independently from EU institutions, to ensure that the EU does not involve itself in issues that should be left to national governments;
  • A new mechanism should be introduced enabling member states to repatriate powers over certain policy areas, even if all 27 countries do not want to do so, resulting in a variable, more democratic Europe where powers can flow both to and from Brussels;
  • The Government should use its legal rights under the Lisbon Treaty to unilaterally repatriate up to 90 Justice and Home Affairs laws, and should prioritise other areas where it wants to repatriate powers;
  • The Government should subject all significant EU proposals to a robust subsidiarity test, and should hold the European Commission to account for rejecting parliament’s complaints about breaches of the subsidiarity principle;
  • The Government should lobby for a new European Subsidiarity Court, to uphold breaches of subsidiarity;
  • The Foreign Office should set up a ‘European Localism Unit’ to drive the localism agenda across Whitehall departments affected by the EU;
  • Form a ‘localism bloc’ of like-minded EU nations, starting with a conference in London.
As we conclude in the Sunday Times piece, This "is a strategy that should command wide cross-party support in Britain and enable us at last to engage fully in the EU."

18 comments:

Anthony Zacharzewski said...

Will read the report and comment in more detail, but I'm not sure that the success of the Gvt's localism agenda in the UK is any greater than that of subsidiarity at the European level.

Peripatetic Scribe said...

A preliminary overview would suggest the concept would find favour in UK. I am also concerned over the issue of potential subsidiarity at EU level. Nevertheless, I feel this is an excellent first step towards a new conceptual framework for Europe.

Anonymous said...

Will these well-meaning suggestions light a fire under UK voters, euro-sceptics, or Brussels? No. These proposals would be OK in their own ay for cosmetic changes at the edge if the general EU project was a reasonably satisfactory & widely supported one. But it is'nt. The whole thing is a disaster area - particularly the EU's ill-begotten bastard-child, the euro.

The best solution has always been: leave the EU, & stand aside as it implodes. But before that happens, Britain needs to decide for itself what it really wants to be - an issue EU-membership has enabled the country (like many other EU members) to avoid. Largely self-reliant? Or closer to our North Atlantic English-speaking neighbours in the US & Canada? Or closer to our even nearer Scandinavian neighbours - ie those who also decide to back-off at least a bit from the EU? Or closer to fellow English-speaking countries worldwide (as in the later colonial days)? Whatever...

But thinking out our country's future is one of the newly emerging necessities as first the euro, & then the EU, implode around us. And there are new complications now to think of. Scottish, Welsh, & Northern Irish devolution for starters. And the consequences of years of headlong unrestrained immigration. How will these effect the future Britain - or perhaps England only?!

Anonymous said...

Will these well-meaning suggestions light a fire under UK voters, euro-sceptics, or Brussels? No. These proposals would be OK in their own ay for cosmetic changes at the edge if the general EU project was a reasonably satisfactory & widely supported one. But it is'nt. The whole thing is a disaster area - particularly the EU's ill-begotten bastard-child, the euro.

The best solution has always been: leave the EU, & stand aside as it implodes. But before that happens, Britain needs to decide for itself what it really wants to be - an issue EU-membership has enabled the country (like many other EU members) to avoid. Largely self-reliant? Or closer to our North Atlantic English-speaking neighbours in the US & Canada? Or closer to our even nearer Scandinavian neighbours - ie those who also decide to back-off at least a bit from the EU? Or closer to fellow English-speaking countries worldwide (as in the later colonial days)? Whatever...

But thinking out our country's future is one of the newly emerging necessities as first the euro, & then the EU, implode around us. And there are new complications now to think of. Scottish, Welsh, & Northern Irish devolution for starters. And the consequences of years of headlong unrestrained immigration. How will these effect the future Britain - or perhaps England only?!

Peripatetic Scribe said...

To Anonymous - I think you are conflating the EU project with the EZ project and I feel that is in error. The EU (as an area for free trade and free movement) is acceptable; what has been happening in the EZ is a fallacy if one considers the founding framework.

Hilary David said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hilary David said...

Well whoever was doing your press briefing does you some serious damage in terms of your reliability and understanding of basic facts.

The article in the Telegraph about the ECJ idea manages to get the wrong name of the UK Judge, confusing him with the Advocate-General, and then confusing her term of office with his.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8754790/Conservative-MPs-demand-veto-over-Britains-EU-judges.html

As it happens, both are eminent lawyers in their own right, so I struggle to see what difference a hearing in front of Bill Cash will make, unless it is to ensure they are partial in the "right" way about EU law...

Open Europe blog team said...

Thanks Hilary David. What we've published is this: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/EUlocalism.pdf - and it makes no mention of what you're referring to. We're well aware of the composition of the Court.

...and, in fact, requiring parliamentary approval would certainly encourage both more public debate and media scrutiny, in turn promoting the "understanding of basic facts" that you seem concerned with. So, in part, you've answered your own question. More broadly, many constitutional systems put parliamentary checks on constitutional court appointments, i.e. the German and American - it's simply an integral part of basic democratic checks and balances.

AuntyEUnice said...

Is localism not just the European Union of the Regions and cities whereby they pretend we have more say when it's just more jobs for pretend politicians to use as conduits to pass on EU regulations.

Could localism prevent my region or whatever from accepting EU immigration? Could I decide which laws are for me, local, national or EU. This idea is just to get our eye off the ball, to pretend there is an alternative and allow the politicians time to breath until the financial crisis abates and we can all get back to forgetting the EU ever existed.

Sorry I'm ever a sceptic when it comes to anything about the EU. The only real answer is OUT, then get on with localism if it is the desire of the voting public, which I doubt it would be once the yoke of the EU is removed.

Hilary David said...

On the composition of the ECJ, if you want to ignite a proper debate you should take an interest in factual errors by the political editors of papers you have just briefed (the AG's term of office is not due to end next year for instance).

"Media scruitiny" worls both ways, it has to be accurate to be useful.

And in terms of "public debate" are you seriously suggesting that comments such as "the European Parliament, an institutionally centralising organisation which sees national parliaments as rivals" are an objective contribution to the debate?

Even the wildest-eyed fanatic in the EP knows it comes econd fiddle to national parliaments and always will - doubtless to the frustration of some Euro-purists. And who IS the EP you are talking about? The increasingly politically diverse members or the staff?

The reason that the moves towards subsidiarity or "localism" have failed in successive Treaties is because the National Governments and, yes, Parliaments, have not had the wit, will or wisdom to propose and insist on genuine and effective measures.

Open Europe blog team said...

Hilary David - looking at its record, it's very difficult to argue that the EP isn't a centralising institution, i.e. EU taxes, economic governance, financial supervision, increased EU budget, single European constituency (we may agree or disagree with these measures, but they're clearly centralising).

The EP is second fiddle to national parliament on taxation and spending, but certainly not on regulation and also increasingly in other areas, such as JHA.

We tend to agree with you that natl parliaments have been far too passive when it comes to scrutinising and influencing EU decision-making – not last the UK parl.

david georgeson said...

At last exactly the direction the UK should have taken in early days. One shoe does not fit all sizes,e.g Greece/Germany.It is high time that we shape the EU to best suit us and give some power to thwart/shape some of the more extreme political aims.

Chris Williams said...

The European Localism proposal makes sense and is coherent. If played to the electorate now it would win the EU argument. So surely now is the time to play it and for Cameron to call a snap election - given the radically different Eurozone circumstances that pertain now as compared to (the perceptions in) May 2010. We really do need a government with a clear majority, able to do what needs to be done without the 'help' of the LibDems (whose overriding priority when determining their stance on any issue would appear to be whether it will help their party to be re-elected rather than whether it is right for the country).

Norman Utton said...

I have read the Open Europe comments about how the UK should take a more pro-active role in Europe. There are several great “buzzwords” in that about things like “Localism”, and so on. Lets get to the nitty-gritty of the whole European situation. First of all, the Euro crisis. The simple truth is that this has been brought about by Europe itself, because countries like Germany, and France want to integrate Europe into a single State. The only way to do this is to have one head of State, with one Government controlling a European super-state, and for each and every country in the EU to give up their sovereignty. That way you can have a “one shoe fits all” financial policy all across Europe. In my view this will only happen when we see pigs fly. There is too much history for this to happen, particularly in the UK, but also in Eire, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, et al. The German dream of controlling Europe is dead. In my view there is a willingness to see cooperation across Europe in many areas, such as trade agreements, and other things, but the UK still needs to be able to trade all across the world, as they have done for centuries, particularly with the commonwealth countries. What the British voters want is to see is a British elected Government following the wishes of the British voters, as should be the case in any democratic country. What the British voters are opposed to is being dictated to by a bunch of Brussels politicians whom we did not elect, and even worse whom we cannot vote out. This is not how democracy works, and until Cameron realises this there will never ever be agreement on our EU membership.

Anonymous said...

The political EU is not designed to do anything else but to achieve 'ever closer union'.
So all this talk of 'localism' EU style is a non-starter.
It's either IN or OUT and time that people realised this. Also do not underestimate the potential of Britain if left to make our own decisions by our own sovereign parliament. Too many treacherous people pushing the EUSSR out-dated model. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Anonymous said...

Thank goodness there is some move towards de EUing us!

The evolving uniformity
that has been and continues to be stamped upon every nation signed up to the EU is a blot on the diversity of cultural heritage and understanding and customs that serves only to inflame citizens within the EU.

Sacrificing local manners and customs on the altar of EU driven commercialism has been an insidious process that has caused deep and irreparable harm to what was once a celebration of each nations differences.

The EU government SHOULD BE more accountable and the red flag idea is at least a start towards that process, though withdrawing from the EU would be the best way forward.

I do hope the committee driving forward this need for reform within the EU does not fall prey to the same mistakes the EU has made, where ordinary people's objections are ignored.

The EU itself is becoming a conglomerate that bears no relation to those it purportedly is supposed to represent.

The European Court should be subject to this kind of monitoring also as the charter for human rights is the real hammer that has destroyed our long tradition of law making which although flawed, at least is borne of a far greater debate and wider ranging consideraton than anything the Walt Disney type judges have introduced. It alright Nick Clegg saying the Human Rights Act is here to stay, but he needs to get an understanding that the Human Responsibilities Act is way overdue and is needed to set up a check and balance on whether victims or perpetrators of crime suffer under half baked laws.

Leander said...

The whole notion of 'subsidiarity' presumes the EU doling out tasks to individual nations-and in doing so establishes itself as the overarching power. This is unacceptable. It could be argued that powers already surrendered to the EU are unlawful as they have not been sanctioned by the British people. No such concession was sought from the people and it is certain no such transfer of sovereignty would be permitted. This creates a festering sore with the British people (and no doubt with other electorates also) and resolution must be obtained quickly.
The idea of reforming the EU is a non-starter as it will simply be used to fudge the issues. The time has long since passed for resolution and the only practical way forward is for the UK to leave the EU. It is a wholly undemocratic outfit and, indeed, antidemocratic. If it ever had a justification, that time has long since gone. It is too parochial-we must again reach for the open seas where the destiny of this country lies.

John L D said...

The more I have learnt about the aims and workings of the EU, the more eurosceptic I have become, but with no major political party willing to present a clear strategy for reducing the bureaucracy, waste and fraud at the heart of the EU, I have no effective means of voting for change and my frustration is turning into apathy.

One of the weaknesses of the UK's negotiating tactics has been to campaign for specific opt-outs for the UK. Inevitably, those opt-outs are a continuing source of friction and subject to attack on the grounds that they give the UK an unfair advantage. It would have been far better to negotiate treaty changes to allow any member state to take advantage of the opt-outs whenever they meet certain defined criteria (which the UK would obviously meet anyway). Take the UK rebate as an example. It would have been possible to define a rebate that depended on the size of the trade deficit in agricultural produce. This would have counterbalanced the disadvantages of the CAP for a country, such as the UK, which is a net importer of food. Since any member, finding itself in the same position, could claim a rebate there would be much less incentive to try to remove the rebate from the UK. Of course, should the UK succeed in reducing the trade deficit in food, it would have to accept a reduction in the rebate while gaining increased benefits from the CAP.