In his thoughtful speech to Progress last month, David Miliband said that one of the problems with the EU was that its decision-making ‘is rooted in quiet compromises between diplomats, not the public clash of ideas between politicians.’
That is true in the EU’s Council of Minsters but not in the elected European Parliament. Debates and votes in the parliament usually divide along ideological rather than national lines. We should use next year’s European elections to stimulate such a clash of ideas, offering different policy choices to the electorate.
To this end, it is important that we work with our sister parties in the Party of European Socialists on a common manifesto across Europe that distinguishes us from the other parties. The true dividing lines in Europe are not between countries but between different political perspectives. The PES case must be that the common market needs common rules setting high standards for consumer protection, the environment and social rights. If the single market is left as a total free-for-all (as the Conservatives and Liberals want) it will be neither fair nor efficient.
Strong support for the directive on temporary and agency workers and new EU employment legislation, tough EU climate change targets and effective consumer protection rules (from roaming charges to food labelling) can illustrate these policy differences to the electorate. If we can make them feature in the election campaign, we might get away from the stereotype ‘Britain vs. the rest’ debate favoured by the Conservatives and UKIP, and make it clear that the EU is not about pursuing historical enmities, but about making mutually beneficial policy choices in an increasing inter-connected world.
We must make the case for Europe a passionate rather than managerial exercise. In this we could still recall Jacques Delors’ speech at TUC conference in 1988, which described an EU in which rights for workers and consumer protection existed alongside economic growth and entrepreneurship. We should update this to create our own model EU which, in the 21st century, should be about completing the single market, but with fair rules, and also about making a united effort to combat climate change, safeguard our energy future and, hopefully, EU membership for the formerly war-torn Balkan countries.
Alongside this we need to square the circle on institutional reform. As David said, the recent Irish ‘No’ vote partly reflected the difficulty voters have enthusing about politicians haggling over changes to the EU’s rule book. Just as Delors told TUC conference that ‘nobody falls in love with a market’ so it is true that no one is going to fall in love with revised voting weights in the Council or an expansion of co-decision powers for the European Parliament. But if we want the EU to deliver on policy, we do need to fix the mechanics.
It’s a bit like a car journey. Most people are interested in the destination, not the mechanics of the vehicle. But it is best sorted before a breakdown. More effective, transparent and democratically accountable institutions will be vital tools in ensuring that the EU’s second 50 years are about tackling the problems that matter to people – man-made climate change, ensuring that our single market balances economic growth with social protection, consumer rights and energy security. Enacting the Lisbon treaty reforms would also settle the institutional debate for a generation.
David Miliband argued, rightly, that the EU could be a ‘motor of progressive politics’. As Labour politicians we should use next year’s European elections to make a passionate case for a progressive Europe.