British prime minister David Cameron welcomed European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker at the door of Chequers on Monday at the height of his powers: a Conservative prime minister who delivered the near-impossible – a House of Commons majority.
In his allies’ eyes, Cameron enjoys unprecedented political capital: his domestic sceptics have been silenced; and his European Union counterparts have had to hold their tongues, too, because he has done what many of them cannot.
However, there are dangers: the Conservatives’ mood has been exultant since May 7th; but that exultation is leading some to underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead.
In such eyes, the changes the United Kingdom wants can simultaneously be transformational, quick to be delivered; but, equally, will not need reforms now of EU treaties.
The Conservatives’ ranks have changed fundamentally since the early 1990s, when Bill Cash and his ilk formed a rebellious bloc defying John Major’s attempts to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. Today the Euroscepticism voiced by Cash is mainstream thinking. Since May 7th, that has become even more so with the election of 74 new Conservative MPs.
Pledged to hold a referendum he did not want, Cameron now seeks changes to EU welfare benefit rules but not to free movement; an opt-out from the EU’s “ever-closer union” ambition, along with single-market protections.
He also wants guarantees that the inevitability – as London and others see it – that the euro zone must unite politically will not threaten the interests of those who stay in the EU.
This list of demands has had a long gestation. Cameron has been criticised for demanding too much, or for being too clear too early. Contradictorily, he is criticised for not demanding enough, or for not being clear enough.
Lack of clarity
The lack of clarity, for some, surrounding the early stages of what will be a long negotiating dance is shared by his backbenchers, more than a few of whom believe Cameron’s list is but the hors d’oeuvres.
None of the new Tory MPs won nomination from constituency associations by declaring pro-EU attitudes, or even neutrality on the subject. The question is the degree of negativity.
Depending on who one listens to, the Conservatives today include 60 or so “outers in all cases”, who will never be reconciled to the idea that the UK should remain in the EU.
A similar number, according to such analysis, would vote to stay in all circumstances; the allegiance of the rest will be contested, with the belief that Cameron will win such a battle because he must.
However, the certainty is, perhaps, premature. Some of his MPs will inevitably be disappointed by Cameron’s demands, never mind the agreement reached in some early-hours Brussels deal.
Equally, Cameron’s post- election glow will inevitably dim as the new administration ages, while those who had to end their leadership manoeuvring on May 7th will not remain silent always.
The Conservatives’ comparatively united front will face challenges long before the text of the Bill clearing the way for the referendum will reach the Commons.
Human Rights Act
First, there is the pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act, reduce the role played by the European Court of Human Rights and instead pass a more limited, British-designed piece of legislation. The issue is central for many Tories, even if the ECHR – a creature of the Council of Europe, not the EU – too often is confused with the latter in the often simplistic British debate.
Here, the Conservatives are not united, since there is a rump – a significant minority, known as "Runnymede Conservatives" in a nod to the Magna Carta, who will oppose changes.
In 10 Downing Street there is a realisation, to draw on Shakespeare, that ’twere well it were done quickly if ’twere done – with a referendum best held next summer.
The advantages are obvious: the French presidential elections are due in April 2017; the German federal contest in October. Neither Paris nor Berlin will welcome a parallel debate about the UK’s membership terms and conditions.
Equally, a May 2016 timetable would see the EU referendum to take place alongside devolved elections in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, plus London’s mayoralty election – all EU-friendly/ier zones.
However, the insularity of the debate in the UK should not be underestimated, with zero recognition of the difficulties London causes other EU capitals by putting forward a list of demands, however reasonable.
A list from Cameron will lead to others being questioned about what they are seeking, and, if they are not seeking changes of their own, then why they are not doing so. Mark Hennessy is London Editor