Manifesto 52

On June 23, 2016, about 52% of those UK citizens who voted in the referendum on membership of the EU decided to pull the UK out of it’s 43 year membership of the largest trading bloc in the world. Since that highly divisive campaign, there have been limited attempts short of twee soundbites and platitudes to genuinely bring the two constituencies (Leave and Remain) together.

After 2 years and much fumbling around some self-imposed red lines, the UK has been presented by it’s government with a compromise settlement negotiated with the EU27. It appears to be pretty unpalatable to Leavers and Remainers alike (the latter, it turns out, appearing to value sovereignty and self determination as much as Leavers). If there is no agreement in parliament on this deal as presented, the default legal position is to leave the UK with no deal, and to become the only developed economy in the world to have no trade facilitation agreements, let alone bi-laterals on major sectors or accords on non-tariff barriers. The consequences are clear to most people. Consensus is however that there appears to be no majority in parliament for a “no deal” scenario and parliament is positioning itself and passing amendments to assure that they can intervene and prevent that. Unfortunately, there appears to be no majority for anything, meaning that the likelihood of a second referendum to ratify the options that lay before the county is increasing.

Through the usual ping pong of social media as these events unfold, an interesting challenge was presented to me. That being, if we were to have a second referendum, what would a Remain manifesto look like that aimed to bring the 52% towards a Remain position?

In order to do that, it is worth having context of what may be driving the Leave vote. Unscientifically, this manifesto is proposed, with a handful of key Leave demands in mind as proposed by one friendly Leaver to your author. If this proves to be TL;DR, then you can scroll down to the bullet points below. However an an antidote to Twitter storms, it was worthy of discussion, so, let’s have a look, shall we?

Membership of a Union of Nation States

Remaining in the EU need not mean participating in an ever closer union. In fact, Cameron did famously already achieve that carve out to extend the UK’s exceptionalism as a member state before the referendum in ’16. Whilst the EU has tightly integrated key legal and legislative frameworks (“the acquis” amongst other things), the UK has numerous opt outs and gained even more in that negotiation. In some respects, it is merely a reflection of the fact that the Eurozone is looking like an ever more closely integrated pact, or inner circle, with other non-Eurozone countries being an outer one. Whilst it was originally proposed by the late French President François Mitterand, this idea has recently been revived by President Macron.

The vision for UK’s membership of the EU has to reinforce the fact that each member state is sovereign. Qualified majority voting exists in some areas, with the UK only “losing” 2% of votes since 1999. In addition, the member states have (absolute) vetoes on key areas, such as the budget.

The key point for a Remain manifesto is to assure that to vote to stay in the EU, is not to lock the UK in step with a single bloc, but to remain aligned at a speed that suits domestic appetite and goals now and in the future. But this is not some lacklustre, grudging membership of the Union. It is recognising the privilege and benefits from being part of the largest and most powerful such bloc in the world — and being proud of being both UK and EU citizens, with all that comes with that. A positive message for the freedoms that come with such citizenship.

Self Determination

Membership is the only way to assure self determination within the EU. Countries in EFTA / EEA (such as Norway) or those with a complex patchwork of bilaterals (like Switzerland) are left merely lobbying on regulatory matters, rather than having a seat at the table, and vetoes on key matters.

It is possible to argue that leaving the bloc guarantees self determination, however the EU is and will be for the foreseeable a significant market for the UK whether in goods or services. This means it matters not one jot whether the UK government seeks to align with the Aquis. UK businesses will have to align with them, and EU regulations are therefore the defacto standards. The only difference will be that on leaving, UK businesses and their employees (namely, UK citizens) will no longer have any determination on such matters.

A small example of this is where it is common practice for Scottish companies to be forced to accept contract under English and Welsh law, despite being domiciled in Scotland, when dealing with English firms. The end result? They standardise their contracts under English law (or at least assure compatibility) to reduce costs and complexity. The same applies with the EU.

As an EU member, the UK has always had an outsize influence on developments (having driven the creation of the Single Market) and would continue to do as a major economy.

Democracy and Federalism, Trust and Accountability

The EU has highly representative structures, with use of PR voting systems, clear lines of ratification by elected MEPs and substantial power in the Council of Ministers essentially meaning that most power has always sat between France, Germany and the UK. The apparent complexity that comes with this governance however has been allowed to create an impression that the EU is in some way undemocratic. The irony that this complaint comes from some in the UK which has a constitutional monarchy and an ever expanding House of Lords is not lost on the EU27 of course.

The European Parliament does have pretty vocal members. Eurosceptics and Federalists alike. Given a commitment to a multi-speed Europe, and the UK (and other countries’) desire to remain in an outer lane, even if the Eurozone decided to drive towards closer integration, this makes no difference — the UK has a veto, and is committed to remaining it it’s lane.

The lack of trust of politicians at domestic and EU level however can stem from the perception that one thing is said to one audience and yet agreed in a different setting (e.g. the EU proposed as an economic trading bloc, then evolving to have the trappings of a state despite all protestations). Again, context matters, and ensuring that the electorate is brought with such decisions is key, making clear and being honest that pooled sovereignty on rules for the power settings of a vacuum cleaner, or data and consumer protection laws eliminates all friction across European borders for goods, services, capital, and citizens.

The structures that could be created in the future are worthy of review however.

One complaint of UK politics, let alone European politics, is a lack of accountability (see below). Whilst the UK press rail against the risks of a Federal EU, they rarely bother to define what that would look like if true. The answer can be found in Germany, or Switzerland, or the USA, where a Federal government is not allowed to interfere with State-level self determination. In fact, the UK would solve a whole manner of problems around Scotland, Wales and NI with a proper Federal Structure, and meaningful devolution. So with devolution being the other side of the Federal coin, it can be argued that a clean Federal structure with absolute and guaranteed devolution would empower local communities. In fact Westminster is a laggard in such matters compared to most European states, so a Remain prospectus should argue for domestic UK reform to align with a more “German” model of devolution and again to reconsider proportional voting systems to deal with the democratic deficit that the UK suffers domestically.

Aligned to this, one complaint has been that “those Eurocrats” make our laws, referring specifically to the Commission. And in fact, it is true that UK representation in the bureaucracy has been low and is declining. However the poor performance of UK education in languages and application for the Concours appears to be the cause, and is remediable. The question for UK government should be to assure this is changed, if it helps deal with a perception of representation and accountability. Improve language education and encourage more participation, not less.

Finally, communication is key, and coverage of EU matters in the UK media is not only woefully inadequate, but largely inaccurate also. The creation of the Euromyths microsite was almost entirely merely to deal with the UK press and it’s habit of being less than honest about various aspects of the EU and it’s work.

Security, Intelligence and Military Cooperation

There is no question that close security and intelligence cooperation with the EU is vital for UK interests. This becomes muddied however when there is chat of an “EU Army” which implies lack of control when seen through the prism of Federalism messages that are poorly expressed. Military cooperation between EU nations makes absolute sense, and there are already overlapping chains of command between nation states and other organisations such as NATO and the UN. Having one for the European continent, with full consent of each sovereign nation, should be completely uncontroversial assuming it adds value, and it’s “use case” is clearly expressed (transparently, and it’s relationship with NATO or the UN is made clear).

Cost

In the EUref of ’16 much was made of cost. The EU costs the UK the equivalent of 0.9% of government spend (according to 2016 data from the ONS). If there is genuine concern over government spend, it is clear that it may be worth looking at the other 99.1% of spend first?

Flippant notes on relative spend aside, it is certainly always worth being the voice of moderation and expecting to drive hard decisions about what the EU could or should spend on — again this feeds back to the question of federalism, and having a clear mission for the EU. And assuring the UK government uses it’s veto to control any risk of mission creep.

Immigration, Population, and Living Standards

Movement of populations globally follow the money. That migration then creates a virtuous circle that help grow that local economy is clear. There have been domestic issues with investment in the UK however, and therefore a squeeze on infrastructure, housing, and services. Immigration reflects success of the economy. Squeeze in services or poor services merely reflects domestic policy choices. This has nothing to do with the EU and responsibility for this sits squarely with the sovereign national government.

Wage suppression is sometimes seen as a symptom of immigration, but there is no evidence that this material. In terms of contributions to the tax take, immigrants are net contributors compared to indigenous populations.

What is clear however is that post 2008 crash, growth has been unevenly felt. In work poverty and food bank usage now is a more meaningful consideration than employment stats. This means that the population at large has no sense of the potential impact of a fall in GDP growth, given any recent growth hasn’t been felt in their pockets anyway. This is unsustainable. To paraphrase Pikkety, the continued growth in return on capital where it is far greater than the return on labour will not end well. Blaming the EU for such domestic policy failure is not only misguided, but will ironically make matters worse.

Manifesto 52

So in summary, the Manifesto 52 could read as follows:

• The Remain Campaign would advocate remaining full Members of a Union of Sovereign Nation States
• Close ties that eliminate trade and non-tariff barriers that have and continue to deliver growth and opportunity
• Equality of educational, cultural, and social opportunities across an entire continent that respects individual nation states, history and cultures
• Strong security, intelligence and military cooperation that is done entirely with the consent of nation states through veto rights, and never at the expense of existing international cooperation such as NATO and the UN
• Evolution of democratic structures to improve devolution and empower local communities in an enlarged union
• Seek to improve domestic political systems to take advantage of opportunities of proportional voting systems and empowerment through further devolution to reduce the UK domestic democratic deficit
• Maintain veto rights, limit any expansion of qualified majority voting, and assure improved UK media coverage of European matters and the UK’s involvement therein
• Continue to use veto rights to assure cost control in the EU, whilst recognising it is not a material drain on UK domestic tax spending
• Mandate creation of key performance targets for wealth and well being that genuinely reflect what the population feel, with domestic policy then driving positive change
• Look to drive more initiatives through the EU (such as the Regional Development Funds) which positively impact the wider population, and not just initiatives that are perceived as being for the middle classes (Erasmus, mobile phone roaming etc)