Andrew Duff MEP

Britain's EU bill puts stability at risk

By Andrew Duff

Unreported and almost unobserved, Britain's House of Lords is coming to an end of weeks of debate on the coalition government's European Union Bill

Ministers have had a hard time of it as Britain's euro-elite, including former commissioners and senior civil servants, have ripped the bill apart. Independent cross-benchers have been joined in opposing the bill by Labour, and a significant number of Liberal Democrat, rebels led by Shirley Williams, as well as a small number of Tory rebels, such as John Gummer, the former minister. From the opposite end of the spectrum hard-right peers have also sniped at the draft law.

The EU bill seeks to impose referendums on all future revisions of European treaties which confer more competences on the EU or transfer powers to the EU institutions, as well as on any other change to decision-making procedures of the Council in which abnormal unanimity is switched to the normal qualified majority vote (QMV).

Some 56 items are identified as automatically triggering a referendum whether the British government or parliament likes it or not. Grounds for exemption are limited to matters which ministers, unencumbered by parliament, consider not to be significant for theUK.

Three lines of attack have been particularly effective. The first is that the bill, if enacted, would change the British constitution in a radical way by imposing referendums whether the change is in the national interest or not. Secondly, referendums will have to be held on packages of complex issues that obsess the political class but bore the public. Thirdly, the "referendum lock" will hobble UK ministers as they negotiate EU reforms, rendering the British unreliable partners in EU circles, and forcing Britain's partners to find ways to bypass the problem either by forming a core group which isolates the UK or by going outside the EU treaty framework altogether. The bill, in short, risks the integrity and stability of both the EU and theUK.

The government says it will not accept significant reform of the EU during its lifetime, which it pitches optimistically as May 2015. So the bill is not really for this parliament but is intended to be entrenched for future parliaments, a factor which in itself overturns the fond nostrum of British constitutional theory - that no parliament can bind its successor. These referendums are to be exclusively about the EU and are not needed for general use: for instance, neither the recent Anglo-French defence treaty nor the prospective reform of the House of Lords would be subject to a popular vote.

Ministers claim they cannot foresee circumstances in which EU treaty change is likely. It might be helpful, then, to set out some constitutional developments which are pending or likely, and to ask which, if any, will trigger a referendum in theUK. For however unwelcome treaty change is in theUK, it is still the normal and regular procedure of the EU in order to codify jurisprudence, to admit new members, or to adapt to new economic or political circumstances. The Treaty of Lisbon is by no means the final constitutional settlement.

Already in the pending tray are an Irish protocol which entrenches (against the spirit of theLisbontreaty) one commissioner per member state for all time, and a Czech protocol which weakens the protection of Czech citizens under the new regime of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EU bill itself provides for the addition of 18 extra MEPs, only one of which is to be British. And the new European Stability Mechanism which allows the bail-out of defaulting eurozone countries (against the spirit of theMaastrichttreaty) awaits British ratification. None of these important changes has been found by the British government to be "significant".

Nor will the accession treaty with Croatia, and in due course accession treaties withIceland, the Western Balkans andTurkey trigger the referendum lock. The bill expressly exempts EU enlargement from referendums, notwithstanding the shift in the balance of power and money that is implied in admitting new member states.

Also exempted from the referendum provisions of the bill is the EU's imminent decision to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights - despite the fact that accession to the ECHR will necessarily extend the powers of the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice in the field of fundamental rights.

So far, as it were, so good. But what is coming down the track?

To deal with economic misrule, the EU will have to enhance the commission's powers to admonish governments which breach fiscal discipline and macroeconomic policy guidelines. This means reducing the ability of governments to veto the commission's corrective measures. These changes are already discussed in the context of the legislative package on economic governance due to be finalised shortly. They will not be the last: Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank, has reinforced the federalist camp in calling for an EU treasury minister with powers to steer a common economic policy and to issue eurozone bonds.

In the interests of efficiency, the Court of Justice is asking for more judges, and the Court of Auditors deserves fewer auditors. In its quest for popular legitimacy, the European Parliament is at last addressing the matter of its own electoral procedure. Proposals to introduce a pan-EU constituency and a supranational regime for MEPs' privileges and immunities will be voted in July. Parliament is also justified in wanting the power to decide on its own seat (a coalition policy, no less).

Implementation of theLisbontreaty poses a number of institutional problems which need to be rectified by further treaty amendment. For example, Catherine Ashton needs political deputies if she is to succeed in fulfilling her potential as EU foreign minister.

IfEuropeis to tackle its energy crisis and contribute credibly to the battle against climate change, the union needs fuller competence in the field of energy supply. The Euratom treaty on nuclear matters cries out for revision.

Nobody now has much faith inLisbon's compromise prescription of a semi-permanent president of the European Council. If Mr Van Rompuy disagrees with José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, they both have a serious problem. Yet if the pair say and do the same thing, why bother to have two of them? Even Tony Blair has now joined the ranks of federalist militants by calling for a directly elected commission president.

Come 2012, the European Council will be paralysed by its inability to agree by unanimity on the new multi-annual financial framework of the union or the reform of its revenue system of "own resources". Who then will reasonably resist a switch to QMV for making those vital decisions?

SoEurope's constitution evolves. TheUKhas neither the moral credibility nor the political clout to stand alone against such evolution. In those circumstances, constant wielding of its legal veto will produce diminishing returns. Despite the denial of coalition ministers, it is certain thatBritainwill have to hold a number of EU referendums, which is a truly daunting prospect as nobody seems to have a clue about how such a poll could possibly be won.

Indeed, if the EU bill goes through parliament atWestminsterwe can be certain thatBritain's EU partners will soon seek to amend the Treaty on European Union so that any future treaty revision, although still having to be agreed by all governments, will be allowed to enter into force before all countries have completed their ratification procedures. That way the EU will align itself sensibly with other federal and international treaty organisations. And that way theUKwill be forced to decide by referendum whether it wished to stay a part of the union or not.

Britain's EU bill is a badly conceived provocation, whose consequences may be to driveBritainout ofEurope. Much now rests on the noble Lords. Last week the peers inserted a clause into the draft law which insists on a turnout of at least 40 per cent for a referendum vote to be valid. This week they will try to install a sunset clause into the legislation that would annul the referendum lock at the end of this parliament.

A wise coalition government would respond constructively to the criticism of the House of Lords. It should also listen much more carefully to what its EU partners are saying aboutBritain's perverse act of self-mutilation.

Andrew Duff is a Liberal Democrat MEP and president of the Union of European Federalists

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. Print a single copy of this article for personal use. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Other recent FT articles

Europe's future foreign policy at risk

Who is Herman Van Rompuy?

What do MEPs want from the new commissioners?

All eyes on triple hatted Ashton

Cameron in Fairyland