Volume 6 Number 8 July 1999 £2.50 The European Journal The Journal of the European Foundation Michael Gove Britain and Europe under Blair & Prof. Paul Ormerod, Michael Colvin, MP, Vàclav Klaus and Prof. Deepak Lal & The ‘New’ Deal: Tory MEPs and the EPP The European Foundation 61 Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HZ Chairman: William Cash, MP JULY 1999 VOLUME 6 NUMBER 8 THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL The Journal of the European Foundation Contents For reference, numbers on pages are as in the printed copy Original PDF Articles below are hyperlinked – use the hand icon, point and click Page Page. Editorial 23 Bill Cash, MP A European Army? 34 Michael Colvin, MP Britain and Europe under Blair 56 Michael Gove A Currency for Jobs? 78 Professor Paul Ormerod Conservative MEPs and the European People’s Party: Time for Divorce 10 11 Jonathan Collett & Martin Ball Poll Data: Analysis of the European Elections 14 15 Tony L o dg e EMU and Globalisation 16 17 Professor Deepak Lal EMU: The Czech Perspective 19 20 Professor Vàclav Klaus Will Europe Work 20 21 by David Smith Reviewed by Charlie Methven Conservative MEPs and the European People’s Party: Time for Divorce 21 22 by Jonathan Collett & Martin Ball Reviewed by Allan Lloyd The UK and the Euro – Better out than in? 22 23 by Graeme Leach Reviewed by Russell Lewis Eurowatch 23 24 Lynette Swift The Rule of Law 24 25 David Radlett The Cologne Summit 26 27 Editor: Tony Lodge Publisher: The European Foundation, 61 Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HZ Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7930 7319 Facsimile: +44 (0) 20 7930 9706 E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 1351–6620 For subscription and advertising enquiries, please contact the editorial office. A subscription form is printed on the inside back cover. The European Journal is published by The European Foundation. Views expressed in this publication are those of the authors themselves, not those of The European Journal or The European Foundation. Feature articles and letters should be sent to the Editor at the address above, if possible on 3.5" IBM compatible disks which will be returned to the authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means or stored in a retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher. Typesetting by Nelson & Pollard, Oxford The Next Steps – After the European Elections n my last Editorial I urged readers to vote The connection between the European issue and the IConservative in the European elections because the domestic agenda must be spelt out now. No political Conservatives had the most Euro-realist policies. The party has been prepared to do this for decades, neither Conservative Party scored a notable success for which on the constitutional nor on the economic front. William Hague deserves great credit, although In recent months I have repeatedly called on Tony personally I would have ruled out the single currency Blair in the House to explain the constitutional for good. connection in a White Paper, as readers know, but he However, as I also indicated, we now have to build has adamantly and publicly refused to do so. on this success. It was no accident that UKIP gained On the economic front we see from Anthony King’s three seats and 8% of the poll. Many who voted UKIP articles in the Daily Telegraph on 3rd July which accom- could well have voted Conservative had our message panied the Gallup poll that Labour supporters are now had more muscle: i.e., single market, yes, but never to turning against the euro, even as the Conservative Party the single currency. remains marooned at 27%. Traditional Labour voters The Daily Telegraph Gallup poll published on 3rd are becoming increasingly disenchanted, as we know July reinforces the case I have been urging for years. It from the local government, European and other recent asked, “If a referendum were held, how would you elections but have not shifted when it comes to vote?” 66% are against joining (and please note that questions related to a General Election. Much of this the question did not say “now”), which is 10% up on disenchantment, for example in relation to classroom the last six months. However, only 27% said that they sizes, hospital waiting lists and local government would vote Conservative in a General Election now. expenditure, comes from the constraints on public This paradox is at the very centre of gravity of expenditure caused by Gordon Brown’s shadowing of British politics and cannot remain unresolved, given the Maastricht criteria but which is unexplained by any the fact that the issue on both questions is about who political party. governs Britain and the very nature of our democracy. The Conservative Party could gain great electoral There is a rational explanation, which is that voters advantage if they explained this but they do not. If they do not see the connection between the European repudiated the Maastricht Treaty as they have the ERM, issue and the domestic agenda any more now than they could then reveal and exploit the connection and they did at the last General Election, which was return real choice to the voters but without opening the intimately bound up with the disaster they floodgates of unnecessary public expenditure. experienced with the ERM. This hit their confidence All of this requires a continuous open public debate in the Government’s domestic economic competence with fully explained information. The debate held by which was never explained as being connected with the Foundation on 15th July is an example of how this the European issue as such (although some of us should be done and is an object lesson to the media strenuously argued that it was), but the political (including particularly the BBC) by providing a live establishment with its propaganda machine would platform with cross examination between the not come clean. protagonists. A video of the debate is being produced. The situation remains the same but is now even Although the European Foundation does not more acute because, thanks to the Maastricht Treaty, remotely share his views, all credit to Lord (David) the weak euro with all its problems is now up and Simon for insisting on just such a public debate, as running, not to mention the collapse of the revealed in Sunday Business on 4th July. Greg Dyke, Commission and myriad other disastrous European Editor in Chief – take note! policies familiar to readers of the Journal. Bill Cash, July 1999 JUMP TO CONTENTS 2 The European Journal • July 1999 A European Army? by Michael Colvin, MP he Anglo–French St Malo Likely allies for Britain in rejecting it are The debate about whether European TDeclaration of December 1998 said in the European countries with neutral status forces are primarily for NATO operations or paragraph one that it will be important to – Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Sweden and for European operations is a false one. We achieve full and rapid implementation of Finland. know that by strengthening Europe’s the Amsterdam provisions on Common What our Secretary of State, Mr George military contributions, we can provide Foreign and Security Polity (CFSP). This Robertson, said to the WEU Assembly on effective underpinning for our foreign and means framing a common defence policy so 1st December was that the Europeans could security policy, which must remain based that the European Union can have the play a fuller role in contributing to our joint on a North Atlantic charter. capacity for autonomous action, backed up security but what, he asked, does this means Shortly after the Secretary of State for by credible military forces, the means to in practice. Defence made his speech, I was the only decide to use them and a readiness to do so, delegate present to vote against ‘TIME FOR in order to respond to international crises. DEFENCE: A PLAN FOR ACTION’ The Declaration reiterated member The debate about proposed by the Assembly of the WEU, to states’ commitment to the mutual security be considered later by the Council of obligation in Article 5 of the Washington whether European forces Ministers. The most common word Treaty and Article V of the Brussels Treaty, running through the document was but this was easier to do when NATO and are primarily for NATO ‘integration’. While the plan acknowledged the Western European Union (WEU) operations or for the weakness shown by European countries nations within it were restrictive to as a result of their governments’ having to defensive operations. European operations depend on the security guarantees provided The experiences of first Bosnia, and now by the United States through NATO, it did Kosovo, show how difficult it is to get agree- is a false one not point out that it would require a ment among member states when offensive reconsideration of the current policies action may be required vis-à-vis the advocated by the Finance Ministers of the deployment of ground forces in Kosovo. The Government’s aim is quite simple. It member states to increase their defence Perhaps more significantly, Alliance is to enable the European Union to have a budgets – just as has now recently happened disagreements over Operation Desert Fox more united and influential voice, in the United States of America. in Iraq earlier this year revealed the gap articulated with greater speed and At the Madrid Summit in 1997, NATO between a number of the European allies, coherence through the CFSP and backed leaders reaffirmed the concept of a Euro- on the one hand, and Britain and America up, when the need arises, with effective and pean Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) on the other.