Security chiefs worried about UK withdrawal from EU security cooperation

The Observer reported yesterday that former police and intelligence chiefs wrote a letter to David Cameron and Nick Clegg urging the UK to stay within the area of freedom, justice and security part of the EU:

"Written by William Hughes, director general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency from 2004 to 2010, it is signed by former Metropolitan police commissioners Lords Blair and Imbert, as well as Sir Stephen Lander, the ex-head of MI5, and other eminent figures.

[...]

The UK must decide by next summer if it wants to remain fully involved with existing EU justice and police measures or opt out. In their letter to Cameron and Clegg, the signatories say the latter course would have disastrous consequences for the fight against international paedophile gangs and investigations into terrorist networks.

"The growth in cross-border criminal activity within Europe is both an inevitable byproduct of the free movement of goods, services, capital and people under the single market, and a serious policing and security challenge," they say. "Responding to an increasingly international criminal environment requires modern international legal and policing tools, fast and effective cross-border co-operation and the ability to raise standards and share best practice with our closest security partners."

British officers, they say, are at the forefront of shaping effective co-operation. "British law enforcement bodies are now constantly communicating, co-operating and collaborating with EU agencies and other national policing partners in pursuing serious organised criminal and terrorist networks.""

I'm not the biggest fan of recent EU security policy - current policy on Passenger Name Record data and counter-terrorist financial tracking with the US and possibly within the EU is very flawed and without sufficient safeguards - but the value of being a part of this area, and whether or not the UK should opt out, should be much more widely debated. After all if the clamour is for repatriation of powers, surely possible withdrawal from a whole area (and former "pillar") of the EU should attract more comment?

The EU Debate on the BBC

Another recommendation today, with a debate on BBC Radio Four called The EU Debate.

The debate covers the in/out debate for the UK in the EU from the politics and economic perspective. It would have been nice to have a programme/debate on each aspect of the relationship (politcs, ecomoics, justice and security, and foreign affairs) to get a bit more into the subject, but it's a good programme.

Since it's BBC Radio, it can be listened to outside of the UK, unlike TV programmes on BBC iPlayer.

Some notes on the UK's EU debate

After yesterday's post on the UK and the European Social Contract, which was written from the general point of view of the Member States and the compromises between their national social contracts, I thought I'd just note a few aspects of the current public debate in the UK on the EU. I'll not cover any specific groups, but just the general state of the public discussion.

1. Renegotiation for...? Despite all the talk of bringing back powers from Brussels, there isn't exactly a clear idea of what powers should be brought back. Social policy seems to be the only area that's highlighted, but the tone of the debate suggests that it matters more that a big victory is achieved by the UK for bringing a policy area home (and that the papers can run with this), rather than there being a specific goal. While it's understandable that the government wants to keep its cards close to its chest so it's easier to claim a victory, if there's such a public groundswell against the EU relationship, it's remarkable that it hasn't crystallised into a key demand yet.

2. The Internal Market as an Ideal. The internal market is viewed as an ideal in isolation to the rest of the EU and simply as a free trade zone, whereas it's deeper than that and requires an extension of the national social contracts (into a form of European Social Contract like I argued yesterday) to maintain its legitimacy.

3. There is no set of plans or reforms that have been demanded for which repatriation of powers is necessary. This links into the previous points, since it's very vague what areas the government will seek to bring home, and the social contract aspect of the EU isn't fully understood (not that it is elsewhere, but there does tend to be a greater understanding of the connection between economy and society in these terms). How does the UK want to change its own social contract? There have been arguments in the UK over financial regulation and whether it should be made easier for businesses to fire people. The lack of ideas and debate about what the UK will be following this repatriation of powers is amazing. What is the UK prevented from doing - or what kind of country is it prevented from being?


4. A referendum on a negotiated settlement could easily fall prey to a Eurosceptic (right) - (ambivalent/more pro-EU) left-wing alliance too. Without a clear sense of direction or purpose over what the UK will do or become with repatriated powers, there is a danger that a referendum would fail due to an alliance between Eurosceptics who reject it as too weak, and those who fear that the national social contract will be redrawn in a way they don't want. I would guess that as the debate becomes more specific over policy areas (e.g. social policy), there will be more questions raised over what will be done with these powers (e.g. maternity leave). It will become easier to paint the renegotiation as an attempt to achieve deregulation and a shrinking of the state, and this may feed in to the referendum campaign.

5. Assumption of alliances. I mentioned this yesterday that for renegotiation there is an assumption that the Northern Europeans want the UK in the club to balance out the others and will help the UK with its deal. However, if the UK withdraws from more legislative areas or sets that as its goal, then it signals that it will be a less useful and influential ally in the future for these countries, making it less attractive for these Member States to spend their political capital in Britain's favour.

It seems to me that there needs to be a debate on how the UK wants to change itself and how it sees itself as a country before it decides how it wants to change its relationship with the EU.

Referendums on the EU

Nosemonkey and Jon Worth have been writing recently about the idea of a UK referendum on its EU membership. Nosemonkey focused on debunking the reasons for a referendum, but there is essentially two reasons put forward against an in/out referendum: it wouldn't settle the membership question, and without a clear "out" plan, such a referendum wouldn't offer any clear choice. I thought I'd add my two eurocents on this, and why I think it doesn't make sense for those supporting EU membership to support an in/out referendum in the UK at the moment.

If there's one thing that can be drawn from the campaigns on the Constitution for Europe and Lisbon Treaty, it's that referendums are very poor ways of deciding the structure of complex, multi-issue matters. Amending Treaties on the EU have always covered very general reforms, mostly on procedure, and it's hard to explain or campaign on such questions. And as Jon noted, being able to fall back on the status quo meant that rejecting Treaty changes was a responsibility-free pass to further your political stance, without the overall answer of the electorate being obvious. It strikes me that if the outcome of a referendum doesn't give you an idea of what people want, then it's not much use.

In the future, changes to the EU Treaties should be on a case-by-case basis, and not general reform Treaties. These would have the advantage of having clear aims that can be debated, and people would have a better understanding of the role the EU plays, and discuss whether it should play a bigger/different/smaller role in that area. This doesn't escape all the problems of uncertain outcomes, but it does greatly reduce them.

In/Out referendums are like general treaty reforms, even if it asks a clear underlying question. This is because the different options to membership - nicely summed up by Jon as the Norwegian, Swiss and US options - are complex results. Nosemonkey has written about Norway and Switerland, and some of the issues with their position. I'll try and write on their relationships with the EU soon (because they have different and complex relationships), but essentially if you're building a single market, it requires common rules, which in turn require common legislation, which in turn requires a common decision-making process.

Switching from EU to EEA membership means joining the internal market but not being part of the institutions that shape it, which is a loss of political power and autonomy.

As Jon points out, the withdrawalist side has to have a case for the alternative which can be debated - without this alternative, the referendum becomes a farce of decision-making. "Do you want the UK to leave the EU?" would translate into "Do you hate the EU?", since it would essentially ask people to state their opinion, rather than actually make a choice.

It would also be unfair to the withdrawalist side. The reason why some supporters of EU membership also support an in/out referendum is that it might be winnable and put the question of membership to rest. Given the non-choice described above, and the general indifference of people to the EU, a yes-leaning "meh" might be the outcome. This wouldn't let the withdrawalist side put their case forward properly, and it wouldn't result in an outcome that would be very meaningful.

Since membership is the status quo, it is essentially for withdrawalist to come up with a case for a non-Member State UK that they want to put to referendum. Until the withdrawalist side come up with an alternative to put to the vote, holding a referendum is pointless, and supporting a referendum without a clear question is merely a more principled-looking way of political point-scoring, whatever side of the debate you're on.