UK & EU: New Faces, Old Problems?

The row between Britain and its allies that accompanied the nomination of Jean-Claude Juncker as the new Commission President was seen by some as an effective short-term tactic from David Cameron. But the ‘Juncker bounce’ was short-lived and left Cameron in a long-term strategic pickle.

Paola Buonadonna
The row between Britain and its allies that accompanied the nomination of Jean-Claude Juncker as the new President of the European Commission was seen by some as an effective short-term tactic from David Cameron. 

Having miscalculated the momentum gained by the Spitzenkandidat process and the strength of Merkel’s initial apparent support, the PM’s rhetoric of an isolated Britain fighting its cause (nearly) alone briefly appeased backbenchers and got some cheering headlines in the eurosceptic press. 

But the so-called ‘Juncker bounce’ was short-lived and left Cameron in a long-term strategic pickle: how to take the country with you on a journey from a disheartened scepticism, which you yourself have contributed to fan, to voting yes in a Referendum you intend to call?

The PM’s approach was baffling, as it seemed to reinforce the public’s misconception of a country lacking all influence just at a time when, as a result of bruising European Election results all over Europe, the political elites in many member states were aligned with the British mantra of reform.

In fact, just as tensions were at their highest between the UK and other member states, the June European Council saw agreement among all the 28 heads of state and government for a Strategic Agenda for the Union setting out most of the reforms David Cameron himself had mentioned in his famous Bloomberg speech.

These include a commitment to reduce red tape, complete the single market, pursue transformative trade deals with the US, ensuring more involvement of national parliaments, and last but not least address the British concern about ‘ever closer union’.

Days later these points were also endorsed by the supposedly arch-federalist Juncker in his Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission.

A few weeks after that the British Commissioner nominee Lord Hill was offered by Juncker the sought after but un-hoped for financial portfolio – a peace offering if ever there was one, delivered against the backdrop of a grumbling European Parliament, sick of the spectacle of a recalcitrant, complaining UK being blandished and appeased. (It remains to be seen if Hill can overcome that initial prejudice and persuade MEPs not to shoot the messenger).

More generally, the new-style Commission designed by Juncker, with is structure of seven vice-presidents overseeing clusters of competencies, seems to indicate a willingness to modernise.

Furthermore, the appointments of Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans as First Vice-President for Better Regulation and Elzbieta Bienkowska, outgoing Deputy Prime Minister of Poland, as Commissioner for Internal Market (excluding financial services), Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs are really good news for the British government. Both countries are well intentioned on reforms, want similar things to us, are strongly pro-British and would regard it as a disaster if the UK voted to leave the EU in 2017. 

In other words, it is not the new faces, but the old problems of mistrust and lack of engagement in Europe that are deeply damaging for the UK’s membership of the EU. 

After the shock of the Scottish referendum it certainly seemed to us at British Influence that a new narrative of leadership was needed. 

We believe that in order to keep the Union together and to withstand the disruption and divisions of a new referendum, we need leaders to start making the case for Europe and selling the reforms that are already on the table.

Our feeling was backed up by a poll we commissioned YouGov to run the weekend after the Scottish vote: 

In the poll, 55% of respondents said they felt the UK is more divided than last year. In Scotland that rose to 76%. More surprisingly, 53% said that in order to unite the country we must move beyond divisive arguments about Europe. Only 18% disagreed. Finally 45% agreed that a new vision for a truly United Kingdom should include leading in Europe in the coming years – only 22% opposed this proposition.

Yet Europe deserved only two or three paragraphs in David Cameron’s combative party conference speech. The PM said he would go to Brussels, ‘take what Britain needs’ on the question of immigration and ‘not take no for an answer’. 

It would be a good start if he could learn to take yes for an answer on the rest of the reform package.

• Guest contribution by Paola Buonadonna, media director for the cross-party, pro-EU campaign British Influence.
• This post was commissioned on the occasion of the public panel discussion we held on this topic: EU 2014-19: New Faces, Old Problems?, 2 October 2014, UCL, at which Paola Buonadonna spoke.