Leading Article: Britain's shaky European voice

Tuesday 15 March 1994 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

THE British government has been in the vanguard of countries pressing for enlargement of the European Union - first to include the remaining countries of Western Europe, and then to embrace the new democracies of Eastern Europe. Partly thanks to its consistent pressure, negotiations were recently completed on entry terms for Sweden, Finland and Austria: those with Norway are held up only on the question of fishing rights. Yet Britain now seems prepared to jeopardise this historically important exercise simply to defend its ability to block decisions within the EU's council of ministers.

At a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels today, a final attempt will be made to resolve both these issues. To objective observers it must surely seem logical that as the Union expands, its decision- making procedures have to be streamlined to avoid blockage by an obstructive minority. With more members, more should have to vote together to gainsay the majority. Yet Britain, with some support from Spain, clings desperately to the status quo.

Under this, a country's votes are weighted roughly in proportion to its population. If two large countries make common cause with a small one, they can frustrate the rest on those topics - the environment, health and safety, and the single market - to which 'qualified majority voting' (QMV) applies. Under the proposal that Britain is resisting, the minimum would be increased from 23 votes to 27, notionally allowing countries with 41 per cent of the EU's total population to be outvoted. For comparison, the last three Conservative governments were elected by 23 or 24 per cent of the UK population.

The Government likes to make out that it has not just Britain's interests but also those of other member states at heart: the EU must be seen to be democratic. Yet it is odd that both France and Germany, whose voting power was not increased after unification, seem happy with the proposed change. So do the small countries most likely to be outvoted.

They no doubt realise that there will be increased pressure within an enlarged Union for decision- making to be delegated to member states, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. When collective decisions are required, the Germans and French seem confident that they will be able to secure the right ones. Why do the British lack that confidence?

The depressing truth is that once again the Government's posture is being dictated not by this country's broader national interests, but by a minority of Europhobe Tory MPs to whom any further marginal surrender of sovereignty is anathema. Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary, should accept a solution today that shows he appreciates which is the more important.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in