The European issue has probably been the most significant one facing Britain in modern times; it has been on-going since we initially chose not to join the original 6 members in 1957. The irony is that although it has had significant impact on the main political parties, it has not figured highly as an issue for voters, and the extent to which it has is indirectly, as an issue that has created the perception of disunity within the Tory party. The reason for this apparent paradox is the ambivalence that is at the heart of both the main British political parties, and the EU itself.

The EU has gone through a number of stages in its development, from Coal and Steel Community to Common Market, to Economic Community to European Union. It was the single market idea that prevailed till recently, when political integration has come onto the agenda. The dilemma that most British governments have had with the EU, is that although the EU has been seen by the British primarily as an economic union ( a customs union ) on the continent it has always been seen as more than that. This helps explain why the question of the benefits of EU membership in Britain seems so inconclusive.

Membership of the EU confers both economic and political benefits, though in both cases they are two-sided. The economic benefits are associated with the customs union and single currency area, though the experience of the Euro versus the pound sterling, together with the UK's lower unemployment and high net contribution to the EU finances suggests that these are as yet not proven to be positively beneficial overall.

The political benefits to Britain are mainly derived from being part of the EU 'club', that we are able to have a bigger impact on world events. This is often put as offering a counter to the United States, in an era when the end of the cold war has created more uncertainties. In foreign policy and diplomatic terms the EU is yet to make any real impact, without any comprehensive foreign policy or defence force. Nato remains the main defence alliance that European states rely on, and the EU has not responded as one, in major foreign policy crises such as the Gulf war and Bosnia; Germany unilaterally recognised an independent Croatia, which was a factor in the start of the break-up of the old Yugoslavia.

The EU's impact on trade issues has been notable with the EU negotiating directly through the WTO on member states' behalf. ( WTO is the World Trade Organisation that was called GATT ) This has definitely given European states more clout in dealing with trade issues.

The EU is also being seen more and more as a means of anchoring democracy in the new democracies of Eastern Europe and thus as a way of improving European long term security. But at the same time the likely enlargement of the EU has sparked a debate about what form it should take with the French president Jacques Chirac proposing speedier integration by what he called a ' pioneer group', probably Germany and France. It is also questionable how such diverse states, culturally and economically, can work together; Austrian President Thomas Klestil said both current and aspiring members states have underestimated the potential pitfalls surrounding EU enlargement. He says the process has also prompted some to question the direction and depth of further overall European integration.

Membership of the European Union removes a wide range of policies from the consideration of parliament; the main ones are agriculture, fishing, trade, health and safety, and if we join the single currency, then the monetary policy of Britain will be decided by Europe.

The acceptance by parliament of these treaties is a de facto ( as a matter of fact) limitation on parliamentary sovereignty since it sets limits to its law making powers; whole areas of policy that were previously the responsibility of national governments have now been given over to the EU to implement or decide. A good example of this is the Europe wide ban of beef exports from the UK following the BSE scare.

In theory Britain could fall out of the European Union, and in that sense sovereignty of parliament is maintained; however that is not a practical policy.

The EU has developed in recent years from largely an economic customs union into a quasi-federal association. The principle Treaties that have brought this about are the Single European Act of 1986, the Maastricht Treaty of 1993 and the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997. Most would agree that these developments have affected our sovereignty, that is our ability to act independently from other member states.

Pooling versus giving up sovereignty Some defenders of further integration make a distinction between loss of sovereignty and pooling of it; this is usually illustrated by reference to other international institutions such as the UN, NATO, IMF and so on, where the UK and other sovereign states have agreed common policy and actions. The idea is that we still exercise our sovereignty but in a collective way. The Maastricht Treaty also introduced the concept of subsidiarity: in areas, involving trade, agriculture, industry, competition, environment, regional development, transport, energy and monetary affairs, the Fifteen can be said to different degrees to be 'pooling' at least a part of their sovereignty. Policies in other areas are the responsibility of national governments. This is the principle of so called subsidiarity. Subsidiarity limits EU action to areas where it is better placed to act than the individual Member States. This implies some residual protection of further encroachment by the EU into national matters. Against that view are those who stress the increase in qualified majority voting in the Council, the use of directives to bring in significant changes such as the 48 hour working week limit under Health and Safety regulations. At a political level the idea of integration is now more powerful if we take note of statements by the German and French leaders expressing greater support for political integration.

There are two possible extreme models of the future EU:

The first we can call the Thatcher model, sees the EU developing as an open trading area with limited pooling of national sovereignty, almost like the Common Market idea that some would say most British people thought were joining back in the 1970s. This is regarded as no significant threat to British sovereignty;

the second is the Federalist model, the target of the Euro-sceptics that sees the EU as some sort of Franco German Alliance that is essentially unsympathetic to Britain's past and wider world links, and wants the EU to become a 'United States' of Europe.

Events are taking us closer to the second model. Sovereignty is being effected by the a number of factors:

The political context. The UK is being seen as increasingly marginalised by the other members, where there has been a clear move towards the federal model of the EU, based on greater integration. In that sense we are less influential in the development of the Union.

The extension of EU common policies and majority decision taking. The process of European integration was strengthened by the implementation, in July 1987, of the Single European Act (SEA), which increased the scope of the Union's legislative and executive authority. The SEA introduced Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of Ministers, the main decision making body of the EU, and the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty extends the scope of QMV. Enlargement is likely to lead to more QMV and a reduced vote for Britain in the Council. However, if any country is still disenchanted with a policy, the ECJ can rule that it should not be implemented in that nation.

Those wanting to see further integration ( the federalists ) have recently advanced their views by arguing for a European constitution, starting with a Charter of Rights, that would give EU citizens common rights enforceable through the European Court of Justice. This would build on the elements of common citizenship laid down at Maastricht. This would also see real powers for the parliament. Supporters of this view are in effect recommending a new European state, against which there is now growing opposition.

If the UK joins Euro then there will be benefits for consumers and households in lower prices and interest rates, but there will be greater competition for jobs, as capital becomes more mobile.

The EU also provides citizens with another form of political participation and thus democracy. Direct elections are held to the parliament and representative groups, (pressure groups), have another form of influence. As an increasing number of policies are being decided in Brussels so pressure groups are shifting their attention there. The Commission can be prompted into action if a matter falls within the range of European policies, for example it took action against Britain over water standards in the 1980s, and pressure groups can bring matters to its attention. The Commission can then refer cases to the European Court if member countries are reluctant to comply with its directives.

Against this there is the argument that we are losing our British identity, the best symbol of this is perhaps the debate about the Queen's head on the currency. This ignores the trend away from nation states and that we should accept that the world has changed accordingly. The debate about the EU is ultimately about this very point.

The world is changing. A vote for the BNP or UKIP is a vote for the past. Why go backwards when we can go forwards?

__________________
www.libdemuk.tk