Following the bad blood within the coalition over the collapse of Lords reform and the constituency boundary review, there has been much speculation that the two parties will enact a policy ‘reset’ after conference season, with Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander already reportedly working out the details. Most people looking for potential fresh common ground between Tories and Lib Dems would hardly place ‘Europe’ at the top of their list. However, while the parties are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on the EU, given political will, there are a number of areas of potential agreement.
For example, both parties already agree on the need to amend the Working Time Directive. However, in terms of immediate action and potential achievability, there is no better target than reforming the EU budget. While the UK and other member states struggle to balance their books, the EU budget has grown year on year despite the vast majority of spending going on policies at best irrelevant, and at worst outright damaging, in the fight to deliver the jobs and growth Europe so desperately needs.
Around 40% of the budget still goes on the Common Agricultural Policy; mostly subsidies to farmers and landowners which act as an outright disincentive for modernisation given they are de-linked from any meaningful economic activity. It is difficult to think of a policy more offensive to liberal values than the CAP: market distorting, sustained by effective lobbying from vested interests, staggeringly wasteful and inefficient, and disproportionately harmful to the least well off in society via higher food prices. Moreover, despite the Commission’s rhetoric, the CAP’s ‘green’ credentials are poor. Slimming down and radically refocusing the CAP by explicitly tying it to environmental objectives such as biodiversity would not only be hugely efficient, it would add credibility to the coalition’s claim of being the ‘greenest government ever’.
Another area in need of overhaul is EU regional spending; the current structure involving all regions in all member states, irrespective of their relative wealth, is economically irrational. For this reason, spending should be limited to the least wealthy member states where it can have the biggest positive impact, an objective endorsed by Nick Clegg. This would save the UK around £4bn net over seven years which could be ploughed straight back into developing the UK’s least wealthy regions, helping the Lib Dems to achieve their long-standing ambition of ‘rebalancing’ the economy away from its over-reliance on London and the South-East.
These measures would require the coalition adopting a much tougher line in the on-going negotiations over the EU’s next long-term budget than it has done, or else risk the existing flawed spending patterns becoming locked in until 2020. While achieving these reforms will not be easy, if pitched correctly, they could command support all across Europe.
These measures would deliver a number of wins; saving UK taxpayers’ cash, soothing coalition tensions, and securing electoral popularity – Lib Dem members and voters are in tune with national opinion in wanting more national control over many policy areas currently significantly influenced by Brussels. Having shown that they can be ‘tough’ on the EU, Lib Dems would then have greater credibility when making the positive case for its continued involvement in other areas.
* Pawel Swidlicki is a researcher at Open Europe, an independent think tank campaigning for EU reform
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers' Diary: Dominic Sandboy's 'What My Housemaster Told Me About the Seventies'
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Ongoing huge cost of Brexit divorce
The Liberal Song, with Jo Grimond on the B-side
David Evans
Helen Dudden
Joseph Bourke
Mark Frankel
21 Comments
Well, the accession negotiations with Iceland should give the EU a chance to rethink its fisheries policy.
The sheer arrogance of this “independent view” is breathtaking. Even assuming the Liberal Democrats and the Tories could agree on such an agenda, how on earth would they deliver it?
Leaving aside the deep flaws in this eurosceptic policy, the UK is in no postion to impose it unilaterally. The EU comprises 27 member states, and major reforms require agreement. That is where consensus must be achieved, not merely between two British political parties. And it doesn’t help that the Conservative Party, by withdrawing from the EPP group of parties, has lost any influence it had over other European parties of the centre-right.
I see that the author, Pawel Swidlicki, belongs to the right-wing think tank Open Europe. Not much thinking going on, I’d say.
Sup with the devil with a long spoon! The motivation of the Tories on Europe are poles apart from that of the Lib Dems. The unremittingly negative attitudes emanating from the UK, mean that at present it will not get much of a hearing amongst the rest of the EU. The “tougher line in the on-going negotiations” is largely a busted flush. The Tories will treat the Lib Dems as ‘useful idiots’ who can find a more sympathetic ear and it is not for Lib Dems to be pushing a Tory agenda on Europe.
Extending the importance of biodiversity and environmental issues in the Common Agricultural Policy is good, but it is a separate issue to overall costs. Basically if your priority is environmental issues then do not expect a budget reduction (and vice versa).
I really do not get the EU regional spending argument. Somehow £4bn is saved. Presumably money that would have gone to the regions, so that it can be spent on the regions?
Surely, the point of EU development funds and regional spending is to create some coherent planning. Immediately my attention is drawn to the lack of a sense that the Lib Dems are the party that is cooperating with politicians from other states in Europe. Whilst the Tories clearly years for a weakened EU, surely Lib Dems stand for a strong EU, coordinating policies and interests, that can stand up to other powerful political economic blocks on the world stage.
The Lib Dems will never benefit from being apologetic about Europe , Lib Dems are widely seen as an internationalist and pro EU party. We need to be prepared to stand up for this stance.
Is it really the case that both Parties agree on the need to amend the Working Time Directive? I certainly hope not! I am a strong supporter of the Working Time Directive – which protects employees in terms of working hours, rest breaks and meal breaks etc.
“I really do not get the EU regional spending argument. Somehow £4bn is saved. Presumably money that would have gone to the regions, so that it can be spent on the regions? ”
No, really?
It will be money that is spent with a closer representative link, and with greater accountability, than would otherwise be the case.
At the same time, removing it from the EU gravy train and thus removing an aggravating sore which is any easy target the public can be directed at as an example of bureaucracy-gawn-mad!
rob heale’s i’m alright jack attitude is shocking. stop thinking about your lunchbreaks and start thinking about how we cut unemployment using less rigid regulation.
Jedi: re “It will be money that is spent with a closer representative link”. That sounds suspiciously like shovelling loads of dosh at marginal constituencies. One role of the EU is to provide coordinated longer term planning. We are relying on regional development in the newer member countries to provide an engine of growth across the EU.
In any case, Simon Titley has outed the rogue origin of this thinly veiled partisan piece, that is totally out of touch with what the EU is trying to achieve, what is stands for and how it operates.
Let me repeat, there is absolutely nothing to be gained for Lib Dems to attempt to outflank the Europhobes: it is futile; directionless and self defeating.
My message to Tom Jones (above comment) is to start thinking about industrial democracy, partnerships, co-operatives and profit sharing schemes, which have been a part of Liberal thinking for a very long time. Further “deregulation” should not be at the expense of employee rights, health and safety at work.
Pretty much agree with everything Martin has written above.
The two parties can agree all they like but, after Cameron’s populist tactics at the European Council last December, the other member states will be about as likely to back any such proposals as the House of Commons are to pass legislation to implement the ideas of the solitary Respect party’s MP.
The Liberal Democrats are so pro EU, it makes me think that they have been completely taken over by the Social Democrats.
For a true Liberal view on the EU, Paul Macdonald, a member of the pro-European, internationalist, anti-EU Liberal Party, recently had this letter published recently in the Western Daily Press, Bristol.
“The correspondent in your opening letter ‘Don’t be trusting of our politicians’ (3rd August) quite rightly highlights that there is no real debate allowed in Westminster about the European Union.
This also is being denied to the public through a referendum. However, there is one major flaw in this that I observed with the public vote on staying in the EEC. It is the money and media support that can be thrown into the pot on one side which will inevitably skew a result.
So what is the answer to those of us that are ashamed of the politics that has developed in the last 50 years and have voted with our feet and walked away from the coalition parties.
As a Liberal in 1975 I recognised that the ‘free trade’ ideal was being taken over for all the wrong reasons. How the years since then have proved that the EU is now the most illiberal political organisation in the so-called western world.
One test as a Liberal that I apply is our belief that decision-making should be made at the lowest practicable level.
Another test that policies such as the common agricultural and common
fisheries policies fails is that they are protectionist and so fundamentally illiberal and therefore have proved disastrous.
It really should be ‘don’t be trusting of our parliamentary politicians’ but do trust others.
For a real shock to the Conservative Party whose membership is falling at an alarming rate those Tories of a sensible persuasion to the EU who really want to make a difference should join UKIP at a surprising rate.
And as I did in 1988 for those who wish to see Liberalism re-assert itself as I did again as a parliamentary candidate in 1992 there is currently the councillor led Liberal Party which has a common sense approach to what should be a ‘common market’ and little more.
Then we have to be given the option to withdraw from this illiberal polit-bureaucracy.
Paul Macdonald
Liberal Party Campaign Director 1992-96”
Have the Social Democrats completely taken over the Liberal Democrats? Or are there enough pro-European, internationalist true Liberals still in the party to stage a counter coup? That is the only thing which will rescue the Liberal Democrats from oblivion, given popular opinion in the country on the EU and the realisation gradually sinking in that the Liberal Democrats are menacingly keener on the EU as a country called Europe than on the UK. I read today that the EU bureaucrats had a plan for a Team Europe in the Olympics, instead of Team GB. That figures!
‘LibDem members … in tune with national opinion’ sounds good to me, probably a better idea to make sure the public know that we are the only party in tune with them than to spend too much time hoping for miracles with the Tories, and getting shafted in the process (again..).
Dane,
integration is universally accepted as the best next option after the ideal of free trade, which doesn’t work because free trade is by nature unregulated, and trust in unregulated systems is naive.
If you want economic benefits with greater inequality, go for free trade. If you don’t want the economic and financial crisis which follows, you can’t avoid integration.
Free trade may be the ideal, but integration is the pragmatic compromise.
Thanks for all your comments.
@ Simon Titley, Martin, Paul R
Regarding your comments about the achievability of EU budget reform – As I have stated, it will not be an easy exercise, not least because of all the vested interests that do well out of the current system. However, as the 2nd biggest net contributor to the budget after Germany, the UK has both a right and a duty to ensure the money delivers added value – i.e. above and beyond what would be achieved by spending it nationally. In some cases, e.g. humanitarian aid, research & development it does, but far too much spending does not.
With its veto over the whole next seven year framework, the UK is in a position of strength the situation is not the same as with the eurozone fiscal treaty – for a start the UK is not in the euro! However, the key will be for the UK to combine this ‘negative’ factor with a ‘positive’ message of how we could both cut spending and deliver better value for money for EU taxpayers – this is where the UK’s diplomats will really have to earn their money.
It is worth noting that reforming the EU budget will also significantly reduce the UK’s rebate – this should be very popular with other member states, not least France!
@ Marin – You raise a few specific points.
Firstly, CAP subsidies are currently de-linked from green objectives, so contrary to your assertion it would be possible to both cut the overall budget and deliver greater environmental benefits.
Secondly, the savings from reforming EU regional policy would be realised by not spending it in wealthier member states any longer (GDP per capita of 90% or above the EU average). Most EU member states (23 out of 27) would benefit from it – the main losers would be Spain, Italy and Greece. As the crisis has shown, these countries are in need of fundamental structural economic reform which EU regional spending is unable to deliver – indeed there is evidence that they may have made the crisis in these countries worse, for example by fuelling the Spanish construction bubble.
Finally, your point about the Lib Dems being a “pro-EU party” – personally, I think that those who are in favour of continued membership need to make the case more vociferously than ever because the status quo is politically unsustainable in terms of UK public opinion.
@ Rob Heale – While the objectives of the WTD may be laudable, its implementation has caused to end of problems, above all in the NHS which struggles to provide junior doctors with adequate training, with a deleterious impact on patient care.
Vince Cable himself wrote that: “The directive incorporates the idea that is most clearly expressed in the French 35-hour week: that work should be compulsorily restricted and shared out, whether or not it suits the needs of individual workers or firms. Not only is this dreadful economics, it is also deeply illiberal.”
“Peter”
“in tune with national opinion” By which I see that Pavel Swidlicki meant, in March this year:
“In the polarised and often exaggerated UK debate on the EU, the Lib Dems have often been caricaturised by much of the press and Tory MPs as being unreservedly in favour of greater EU integration or even an ‘EU super state’. The truth is of course far more nuanced.
That’s why a new YouGov/Cambridge cross-country poll out today is so interesting. It shows that a majority of UK voters (53%) support either no further EU integration or a looser arrangement. Only 14% said they wanted more integration. These attitudes span the political divide, with 50% of Lib Dem voters saying they wanted either a loser relationship with the EU or outright withdrawal. On the thorny question of whether primary responsibility for specific policy areas should lie with national capitals or Brussels, Lib Dem voters want more national control over areas such as police and crime, employment laws and trade almost as much as the average UK voter, and even more on agriculture.”
Interesting! You would never know, from what the LibDem leadership says –
“Oranjepan”
– Or from what you say! Integration rather than unreliable free trade? Bringing about less inequality should be something for the short term, intra-nationally, rather than waiting for a distant dream of international integration. You make European integration sound like some quasi-religious heavenly vision in the far distant future – in which and when all manner of things will be well. Hm!
In the meantime, in the near future, what can bring about less inequality, at least of wealth, is intra-national empathy, by means including, or course, intra-national Universal Inheritance schemes – starting with UK Universal Inheritance for UK-born UK citizens financed by reform of taxation of inter-generational transfers of wealth! The EU would not like it, naturally, because it would discriminate against non-UK born UK citizen. In fact they would not like it because it would discriminate against non-UK EU citizens. That is why Julian Le Grand, the co-author of the Fabian Society’s “A Capital Idea” in February 2000 – more or less identical with UK Universal Inheritance – later started calling for EU-wide Bambini Bonds instead of Baby Bonds. Let us rule ourselves, rather than be ruled by Brussels, and lead the way internationally, as, under a good aspect of Margaret Thatcher’s leadership, we did with privatisation.
As for the financial crisis, that has already been caused by EU quasi-religious believers, either cynically or naively, putting the single European currency cart before their mythical Country called Europe horse. The Euro is more likely to disintegrate than the EU is to integrate, and it would be a costly disintegrating collapse, alas. But let us now cooperate and experiment nationally and internationally instead of unrealistically aiming at international EU or further integration. Global development and survival requires cooperative national diversity and experiment, not international integration and uniformity.
It seems some would like to shoot the messenger because he is deemed not to be ‘one of us’. Actually, he has a point, especially when it comes to the CAP (although revamping the Coalition would not be the motivation for me).
Do we really, if only by default (or by the impilcation of candidates for the European parliament being ordered not to talk about EU issues), really support the policy of handing large amount of tax over to large landowners with just a little greenwash to improve the smell?
If we instead campaigned for the repatriation of the CAP to member countries we would certainly have a big fight on and it might take a long time to win but would be worth it. For one thing it would lead to huge savings on net contributions and for another it would demonstrate that the one-way ratchet of ‘ever greater union’ was dead. Both would go a long way to shooting UKIP’s fox.
@ Dane, If even roughly correct, that YouGov/Cambridge poll suggests the LD establishment is completely out of touch with the membership – and porbably even more so with the POTENTIAL membership – something I have felt for a long time.
@Liberal Eye: “…candidates for the European parliament being ordered not to talk about EU issues…” Are they really? If so then that is a serious mistake. The European Parliament is the only democratic arm of the EU; it is also an institution in which our representatives are free to advance the undiluted Liberal Democrat agenda. The only way we have any chance in the next European Parliamentary election is by selling the achievements of our MEPs, both in helping create a liberal vision of Europe, and in keeping the bar-stewards (the Council and Commission) honest. [Incidentally, this is not Euroscepticism: after all we don’t think that being pro-UK means being uncritically supportive of everything the UK civil service does; it shoudl be the same in the debate on EU issues.] Lib Dem MEPs, and the ALDE group in general, are among the strongest supporters of CAP reform; we should be selling this to the electorate come 2014. However, I’m not sure what makes you think that member states can be trusted with agricultural policy any more than the EU. It is principally member states that are holding back CAP reform, as they are holding back reform in many other areas of EU policy, so I suspect that agricultural policies in the hands of national governments would be just as beholden to large-scale farmers as the CAP.
“Liberal Eye”
How I agree with you that “the LD establishment is completely out of touch with the membership – and probably even more so with the POTENTIAL membership” on the EU. I left the LDs when I found that amongst the local establishment it had become a kind of heresy to want the UK to leave the EU, the CAP and the CFP. I happily belong to the EU-sceptic Liberal Party, but very much wish that the LD leadership would move in the EU-sceptic direction, becoming more LIberal and less EU-fanatic Social Democrat, so that Liberal forces could come together again.
Alex Macfie
Significant CAP reform within the EU is just another dream. National governments can and have acted to reduce or even abolish agricultural subsidies. We should leave the EU, and then, like New Zealand in 1984, abolish all agricultural subsidies overnight. Of course, there would be opposition to that from some EU sceptics, notably the landed interest in the Conservative Party, heavily supported by the aristocratic familes who still own one third of all the land grabbed at the time of the Norman Conquest, thanks to unlimited exemptions for agricultural land from Inheritance Tax – another policy area in which the Liberal Party is streets ahead of conservative minded Liberal Democrats.
@ Alex Macfie
I learned only recently from a comment by Simon Goldie on an LDV post that EP candidates had been ordered to shut up about Europe. I assume he was correct about this and the point was uncontested. As it happens I had picked up (purely a worm’s eye view) that something was ‘off’ and had blogged about it earlier although I think the Euro elections Simon was referring to was the one before 2009 (2004 from memory). As you will see I strongly agree with you that wanting an alternative vision for Europe is NOT Euroscepticism.
http://liberaleye.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/the-ostrich-strategy-european-edition/
I’m glad I decided not to make it a personal attack on the candidate although a good candidate would have told the party bosses to get lost and the fact that none apparently did is disturbing for it implies that, far from being a bottom up, member led organisation as per foundly held belief, the LDs are, in fact, a very top down structure where candidates are not in any meaningful sense independent.
On the specific point of the CAP you are right that if repatriated countries could simply carry on with a domestic version but with a twist; simple price support would not be possible within a free market or wheat etc would simply flow into countries offering the highest levels of support. So it would have to be income support or something more complicated which would make it harder to subsidise big landowners. And the funding would come from national budgets at a time of austerity.
@LiberalEye: I thought you meant more recently; I agree that the 2009 Euro campaign was rubbish, and if our election literature for 2014 is anything like that, then I shall be conveniently unavailable for campaigning. Saving post offices has nothing to do with the European Parliament. Our Euro election campaign needs to focus on what our MEPs have done in the European Parliament; there need to be two parts: (i) why the European Parliament matters, and (ii) why people should vote Lib Dem for the EP.
Rob Heale
Is it really the case that both Parties agree on the need to amend the Working Time Directive? I certainly hope not! I am a strong supporter of the Working Time Directive – which protects employees in terms of working hours, rest breaks and meal breaks etc.
Agreed. Why is LibDem Voice full of comments from trendy youngsters who seem to have swallowed whole the “answer to everything is extreme free markets” fashion, and are capable of little more than repeating parrot fashion the propaganda lines for this sort of thing from their elders and if not betters at least people who said this sort of thing when there was some freshness in it? Reminds me of the time when trendy youngsters repeated parrot fashion the socialist lines passed on to them by their elders and betters, at just the time socialism was proving disastrous wherever and whenever implemented. But always the answer from the young trendies is that the only problem is that it has not been implemented in an extreme enough form.
I wouldn’t even entirely reject the CAP. It dates from a time when there were people in Europe who really did face starvation. Sorry, I think there actually is very good grounds for making sure we do keep good agriculture going close to us, rather than just suppose the rest of the world will carry on supplying us with food. Try looking at the crop failures that are happening around the world in various places now. So I don’t think there’s anything wrong in principle in having a subsidy which keeps agriculture in existence even if a bit expensive, when allowing it to disappear means we are stuck if we need to reinvent it because the suppliers we’ve come to rely on won’t supply our needs any more. I’ve always felt we in this country should try looking to see if there were ways we could get more out of the CAP, can we get it to subsidise a big increase in agricultural jobs? I’m not saying in this I support the CAP in its current form, but I am saying I reject the simplistic free market attack on it.