Reforming the EU: Is It Possible?

Update: Whether you are for the EU or against the EU, if you believe in the people being heard, you will agree that when up to 75% of people want a referendum on it, it is right to hear them. When three quarters of the British public want a chance to be heard, and none of the three major parties are willing to listen, there comes a time for action. Join The People's Pledge and tell them that if they won't hear our voice and offer a referendum, we won't vote for them.

One of the common arguments which I hear from supporters of more integration with the EU goes something like this:

"The EU is in serious need of some reorganisation. It has to work more efficiently. We should get more involved and push for it. Our external policy leaning towards the US has not helped with this as we lost influence on EU affairs which is precious as they should be our main allies (because of historical and cultural reasons). By getting more involved we should be able to tackle this, as opposed to carry on pretending we live in a country in limboland, neither Europeans nor Americans... and calling the people who live in Europe, continentals..."

OK, I admit it, that's a direct quote from two Lib Dems who I've debated the subject with from an online discussion group (most of the party is far from sceptical of the EU).

Essentially, the Reformist argument is that although the EU isn't perfect, we stand to gain a lot more from reforming and integrating with our allies in Europe, than from raising the draw-bridge and completely backing away. As I have long stood in the opposite camp, I figured that I'll give their approach some scrutiny and see what I can come up with.

I'm not ideologically opposed to a union with Europe, and a lot of the basic ideals of the European Union are ideals which I share:

1. Free movement of working people
2. Free import and export
3. Dealing with external issues like the environment as a bloc

What I'm primarily going to look at are those areas where I clash with the reformist camp (not to be confused with the Europhile camp who think the EU is fine as it is) and see if it would be possible to push for reform in the European Union which would better benefit Great Britain.

The subjects which I propose to look at are the following:

1. The ECHR
2. Immigration from the EU
3. The Smoking Ban
4. The Common Agricultural Policy
5. The Common Fisheries Policy
6. The EU's Green Taxes
7. The European Commission
8. The Purpose & Powers of the EU

Although I am a sceptic, I am going to attempt to look at these things from a neutral standpoint and to work out whether it's reasonable to think that we can reform the EU into something which is more beneficial to our country and to our values.

This could well end up being a very long post, and one where I have to source a lot of information on the European Union from various sources. If you have information which I've left out, please let me know and I'll try to amend my points in future posts or in the comments.

1. The ECHR

In light of recent events, it seems worthwhile to put this small but significant point first. The United Kingdom is currently having a national debate on whether it's in our interest to stay in the ECHR. Personally, I'm not particularly for it, I believe that we could set up a perfectly effective Human Rights Act in the UK without being in it.

However, the whole national debate is pretty pointless, as by staying in the European Union, under the Lisbon Treaty we are forced to enact the European Convention of Fundamental Rights (essentially the ECHR) in full.

The debate is not so much whether we need human rights, of course we do, but whether we need to maintain the right of appeal to a supranational organisation at massive costs to the UK taxpayer, or whether (like the USA and many other countries) we can establish our own convention and process appeals faster and more effectively than the ECHR could ever hope to.

2. Immigration from the EU

Firstly, I should clarify the issue with immigration from the EU, as I see it. Personally, I'm not against immigration from anywhere, as long as said immigration is self-sustaining. What that means, in simple terms, is that people either come over here with the means to keep themselves, or they come here and work.

My suggestion would be the following:

• Non-British citizens lose entitlement to income-based jobseeker's allowance
• Non-British citizens not in work lose entitlement to all LHAs of Housing Benefit other than the 'single bedroom flat' rate.

This is not about racism, it is about preventing people from coming here purely to use the benefits system. Those who come over here with the intention to work who later lose their jobs will be able to get contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance, and those in work will still benefit from top-up benefits.

Additionally, those who stay here long-term will be able to apply for British citizenship, so will be able to eventually gain income-based JSA and housing benefit, assuming that they come here with the right intentions.

I would recommend these same restrictions upon immigrants from the EU or anywhere else.

Again, though, we are not allowed to offer benefits with conditions to EU citizens, because the EU has legislated so that we cannot distinguish between the hard working immigrants who want to better themselves (the kind which we all should welcome, whether they're from Europe, America or Asia) and people who come here for the easy ride on benefits and the NHS.

This would be fine if we were sending as many people abroad to the EU as we are taking in, but we don't, and those who do go abroad are largely going for work purposes and to live out their retirements on a British state pension, not to claim benefits from another state (no reason to -- ours are better). Additionally, if the EU expands further to Turkey, we are looking at a huge potential influx of very poor people who can come and claim what they want.

Nigel Farage said on the matter:

"We cannot have a workable immigration policy and be a member of the EU"

With Iain Duncan Smith's changes to welfare, this particular point could become less of an issue as our benefits would become less of a free ride and other countries would appeal to homo economicus, but it is nonetheless an important consideration when dealing with the EU.

3. The Smoking Ban

Now, I'm not a smoker, but I am a libertarian, and my libertarian values find the idea of a business which wishes to allow a legal activity on its premises being told not to. These values start setting off alarm bells when the businesses are our suffering pubs and that activity is smoking. The alarm bells get some pretty flashing lights when the law wasn't even written in Westminster.

During the second year of the smoking ban in England and Wales the onset of an economic downturn began to be used as an excuse for the huge number of pub closures. This however could not explain the ten fold increase of losses in the first year and is at odds with the history of previous economic downturns when pubs have traditionally 'boomed'. In fact analysts have pointed out that, during the seventies the pub trade peaked at a time of runaway inflation and record unemployment.

This, for me, is one of those places where the EU really shouldn't be writing legislation. This is a purely domestic issue which has nothing to do with international relations, and just seems to represent an expansion in EU powers which are unnecessary and unwanted.

It seems that we're not alone in this fight against the EU. Denmark has already illegally reversed parts of the ban in order to stop its bars from shutting down, and we'll have to await the response of the EU to that action.

Some EU supporters use Denmark's response to say that we can do the same, and we don't need to leave the EU. This is similar to saying that because you can get away with smoking weed, it shouldn't be illegal.

This also isn't just about the smoking ban, it's about the eroded lines between the EU's operation and national sovereignty. If we want a smoking ban in the UK, surely it should be a law written and passed by Westminster, not one which nobody in the UK voted for and no party ran on.

What's next? The EU deciding how we measure our food? What we can eat? This is yet another area where it just feels like the EU has overstepped its mandate.

4. The Common Agricultural Policy

A lot of people know about the CAP, a lot of people know that it's something that we sceptics see as a problem in the EU, but few people know what it is.

The Common Agricultural Policy is the EU's single largest policy, in terms of budget, and costs the EU (which is funded by us) over £50 billion a year.

The purpose behind the CAP is to guarantee European farmers a guaranteed price for any given product, and to subsidise those who cannot get that market price for their produce. This, coupled with high tariffing of non-EU produce aims to give farmers a good quality of life, give the people a plentiful supply of cheap food and "preserve rural heritage".

As with many things, it's difficult to take issue with the stated aims, however there are substantial criticisms of the CAP, most notably the following:

• The CAP discourages trade with the outside, as the subsidies coupled with the tariffs make it impossible for most countries to compete in Europe.
• The EU stockpiled so much food by subsidising that in 2007 it had stockpiled over thirteen million tonnes of cereals, rice, sugar & milk products and over three and a half million hectalitres of alcoholic drink. It then exported much of this produce with subsidy, which caused African and Asian farmers to be unable to compete with cheap competition from Europe in their own countries.
• The CAP helps large-scale farmers and puts additional pressure on smaller farms, damaging the traditional family farms of Europe.
• The CAP benefits a lot of countries more than it benefits the UK, as we have little agriculture, we get little of the subsidy even though we pay one of the highest EU contributions.
• The CAP benefits very few Europeans.

Many European nations are coming around to the idea of reforming the CAP. Sweden proposed scrapping all of the subsidies, and even the European commission have admitted that the CAP has serious flaws.

However, it's been a long time since we've heard a lot about CAP reform.

5. The Common Fisheries Policy

This policy was the original one which made me an EU-sceptic, long before the smoking ban was introduced, the EU decided to put in place legislation allowing every EU country to fish in waters up to 200 miles off of any other EU country's shores.

The UK does have a 6-mile zone to which the CFP does not apply, but this is a small consolation for being the EU's worst-affected nation by the policy.

The European Union has attempted to control the fishing by setting quotas, but some countries, notably Spain, have been notoriously bad at following them, and this has diminished the supply of cod in the Irish & North Sea to the point where we've had to start breeding cod in fresh water.

One Aberdeenshire fisherman, George Stephen, stated:

"In 30 years at sea I have never caught a whale, destroyed a dolphin... or dumped nuclear waste, but I have been forced by the EU to dump hundreds of tonnes of edible fish in the name of euro-conservation."

But again, the primary issue is that the EU is telling the UK how to use its own waters, and opening up UK borders to foreign corporations with no compensation to the British people. As an island nation, we have one of the largest water masses in the European Union, but we're losing our own fishing rights to other countries because of EU intervention.

Again, the EU has admitted failing to maintain levels of some species, but has not suggested protecting UK sovereign access to our waters.

6. The EU's Green Taxes

One function of a sovereign nation is the right to tax its citizens. For better or for worse, this use of coercion to create social justice is the monopoly of the state. If this is true, then why is the EU now meddling in our tax affairs?

When our MEPs voted against a 6% rise in the EU budget for next year, the EU demanded that we allow it to raise taxes directly from the British people via a direct tax in order to pay for its pet projects (green energy).

Thankfully, David Cameron has a backbone and refused to bow to this demand, but it does suggest that the EU is trying to expand its powers even further. Never before in its history has it had the audacity to suggest a direct tax upon the people.

7. The European Commission

One of the most perplexing things about the EU, in my opinion, is the European Commission. The purpose of the Commission is described as follows by the official site of the EU:

The Commission is independent of national governments. Its job is to represent and uphold the interests of the EU as a whole. It drafts proposals for new European laws, which it presents to the European Parliament and the Council.

It is also the EU’s executive arm – in other words, it is responsible for implementing the decisions of Parliament and the Council. That means managing the day-to-day business of the European Union: implementing its policies, running its programmes and spending its funds.

If you don't see what's wrong, that's understandable, because that there doesn't explain that the European Commission is appointed. It is essentially the most powerful quango in the world. One would think that the only organisation which can propose legislation for the largest political union in the world might at least be directly elected by the European people.

This is quite chilling really. We turn up to the European Elections to vote for our candidates, and then learn that they have no right to even propose EU legislation. In my opinion, this is not suitable for a democratic gathering of any kind.

8. The Purpose & Powers of the EU

The European Economic Community (the predecessor to the EU) was originally established by the Treaty of Rome, which stated the following functions for the EEC:

(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions in regard to the importation and exportation of goods, as well as of all other measures with equivalent effect;

(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and a common commercial policy towards third countries;

(c) the abolition, as between Member States, of the obstacles to the free movement of persons, services and capital;

(d) the inauguration of a common agricultural policy;

(e) the inauguration of a common transport policy;

(f) the establishment of a system ensuring that competition shall not be distorted in the Common Market;

(g) the application of procedures which shall make it possible to co-ordinate the economic policies of Member States and to remedy disequilibria in their balances of payments;

(h) the approximation of their respective municipal law to the extent necessary for the functioning of the Common Market;

(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve the possibilities of employment for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living;

(j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank intended to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community through the creation of new resources; and

(k) the association of overseas countries and territories with the Community with a view to increasing trade and to pursuing jointly their effort towards economic and social development.

It is worth mentioning two things before we continue.

1. Point 'c' refers to common movement of people, but the laws covered by it specifically refer to workers. Despite the fact that the Treaty of Rome was not written in an era where people lived on benefits, it made no requirement of any EEC nation to treat other nationals equal to their own in terms of benefit claims, state pension or moving without the intention to work.

In fact, under Title III, Section I of the Rome Treaty, we see that the right to move applies specifically to people who have been employed in the nation they wish to move to:

"to live, on conditions which shall be the subject of implementing regulations to be laid down by the Commission, in the territory of a Member State after having been employed there."

2. Point 'd' makes reference to a 'common agricultural policy', which would later become the subject of much debate. Under Title II of the Treaty of Rome, we can see that the Treaty encourages a policy with a mandate to "increase agricultural productivity by developing technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production", unfortunately this is not what the Common Agricultural Policy of today does.

The essential point of the EEC seemed to be to promote economic prosperity, European productivity and free trade within Europe, as well as easily allowing European nations to hire persons and services from other European countries easily. In other words, the EEC was mostly a fiscal union, not a political union.

The European Union in its iteration today has:

1. A full legal personality, which allows it to write legislature which overwrites legislature written in National parliaments, like the EU-wide smoking ban
2. Laws preventing any country within the EU from refusing full citizen benefits (including state welfare) to any EU migrant
3. A common fisheries policy which is often poorly enforced and harms the UK more than any other country
4. A European police force and European arrest warrant scheme
5. A European tax system, levied against green agendas in order to bail out the Euro project, which even non-Euro members are subjected to

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it seems to suggest that the EU has assumed more and more powers to legislate on issues which many of us would consider national interests. The EU no longer seems to deal only with problems which nations themselves are incapable of doing unilaterally, but imposes itself in our sovereign borders.

Why is this important? I think that this is important because it's the core of what we (the sceptics) dislike about the EU. We're not xenophobes (well, most of us aren't), we're not against working with Europe on issues which can't be done at home, what we're against is the way that the EU currently meddles with issues which we consider to be issues for Westminster and Britain.

I think that most liberals and most conservatives are in favour of localisation of power. What that means is that government should be built bottom-up. You start at the local level with all powers, then decide which powers cannot be dealt with at that level; then you move up and up, only moving up the powers which are impossible to deal with at a lower level.

What this approach leaves the EU with are functions like:

• Trade tariffs within the European Union
• Trade regulations within the European Union
• Negotiation on the world stage on behalf of the European Union

What the EU would not have with this approach are functions like:

• The ability to dictate that the UK needs to burn its crops
• The ability to dictate that UK waters can be fished by European fishermen
• The ability to tell the UK what its immigration policy is
• The right to have a European tax system

So, any reform of the EU would need to include re-asserting the UK's sovereignty, and our unwillingness to have legislature written outside Westminster to destroy our fish yields, pay our farmers to stop growing crops, ban smoking in pubs and pile tax upon our landfill sites. In other words, the EU would need to reverse its current direction entirely.

So, is it beyond reform?

In conclusion, I don't feel that the European Union is built on a bad premise. The idea of a union of nations working together in the world with a free trade area and some level of free movement is a good thing. So, what would it take to make us sceptics happy with the EU?

The European Union should draw up a new European Constitution, limiting its powers for a permanent duration. It should contain the following at very least:

1. The European Commission would become executive-only, and the European Parliament would propose legislation for the European Union.
2. The free movement and free work permits of people to be preserved, but national governments to be free to limit welfare and student places in tertiary education to their own nationals only.
3. The European Union would have no right to ever levy a direct tax upon the peoples of Europe.
4. The European Union would have no right to ever advise the budgets of any member nations.
5. The judiciary would be a matter for the member nations indefinitely, and the police would as well. This would involve the abolition of the European Police Force, European Arrest Warrant, as well as removing the forced subscription to the ECHR from the Lisbon Treaty.
6. Other than as described by section '2', the European Union would not control the borders of any member nations i.e. the CFP.
7. Scrap the Common Agricultural Policy.

The EU's purpose would be re-written to something much closer to the original EEC:

To provide a platform of free trade and free movement of workers to the countries of Europe, to further the goals of those countries on a global stage and to enable scientific and military cooperation between the European nations.

Personally if these changes were enshrined by an EU Constitution, this sceptic would be able to support it. Will it ever happen? I very much doubt it, but we can hope.

I hope this shows that the sceptics aren't trying to jump the ship, we would like to believe in EU reform as much as anybody else does, we just find it hard to believe that these reforms will happen given the direction in which the EU seems to be moving.

If these reforms are seen to be impossible, and the EU regresses towards removing more control from our government, I do believe that jumping the ship would be the responsible option. I think that the bill giving the people the chance to vote on any further surrender of powers is a step in the right direction from the coalition, as it will halt the EU expansion of powers, but we need to start moving it in the other direction.