Mike Galsworthy has been great for British pro-Europeanism. He has kept Europe on the agenda, in the public eye and among politicians. He has been one of the few on the join side able to express support for UK membership – perhaps owing to his scientific background – as a question of cooperation and civilisational affinity rather than base economics. But in this video on the euro he is wrong. Tactically, strategically, and perhaps even morally.
What should the UK aim for in accession?
Mike, and other pro-Europeans, don’t want to talk about the euro. They sense that that is where their support is weakest. The tactic has been to ignore it, and when it has come up to say that the UK can just avoid it.
But you can’t choose the battlefield. Firstly, the application is a formal commitment, in the Copenhagen Criteria. If the UK can’t show support for monetary union from the off – and consistently – then its application would face serious obstacles.
Secondly, the vagaries of a referendum campaign mean that the euro will almost certainly become contested, whether Mike and others want it to be or not. In effect, an accession referendum will be a referendum on the euro. Iceland has noted this and made discussion of the single currency central to its preparations, with the implicit proviso that if it can’t support the euro, membership may not be appropriate.
Given that, tactically it makes sense to have the argument now, to promote support for the euro today. Really, “Europe is great, but you know the euro is a deathtrap, but we Britons will be able to cunningly avoid it” is not the argument you think it is with a public sceptical about European unity.
How does Europe see UK accession?
How do Brussels and the member state capitals feel about accession requirements? From the EU’s perspective, Mike’s phrasing – “The supposed commitment to join the euro is pure ritual, it is not a serious commitment” – is not only insulting to what is, after all, the deepest expression of European unity. It is also just not how leaders see it.
Political commitment is taken very seriously at this level. It would be an absolute diplomatic disaster to lie to new partners about the UK’s bonds. Good faith efforts will be expected from the UK, and it will be held to that commitment.
Futures and options
But what about Sweden, as Mike has brought up? Well, this ignores the context: it’s not 1995 or 2004; a lot has happened since. Although the UK has attempted to undermine the euro since its debut, primarily the UK’s extortion of eurozone member states during the 2008 financial crisis was the Rubicon being crossed. This is etched into folk memory in Frankfurt.
That happened because the UK was not committed to monetary union. There is real determination never to allow that to happen again, especially for a medium-sized state with a rival reserve currency and a huge financial centre. Europe will take whatever steps are necessary. Overall, Mike’s tactics would go down very badly with “European partners and friends”.
Should the UK be at the heart of Europe?
Strategically too, were this to happen, it would be a massive blunder on the part of UK pro-Europeans. People like Mike argue that the UK should be at the heart of Europe.
You cannot be at the heart of Europe if you are not using the euro. Increasingly, decisions are being made by the euro group, and that will only get stronger as time goes along, even in areas like common defence. The idea that the UK could “lead” outside the European mainstream will be impossible to maintain, and frankly there will be resentment in Westminster.
The bigger test will come during the next crisis – and that will come. Will the UK’s loyalty be to the community, to the wellbeing of all? Or will it be to sterling and the City of London? History tells us the answer. Arguments like Mike’s are merely setting up Brexit 2.0 in the medium term. The UK needs to be committed and faithful to monetary union.
Treaty changes and accession?
All this, of course, is without the treaty changes that are being discussed for Ukraine’s and others’ accession. Among those may be restrictions on voting rights and other penalties for backsliding or lack of good faith efforts on European unity, in particular in areas like the euro.
It has been intimated by several figures in and around the decision-making on this, a UK accession would need guarantees on an end to abuse of sterling’s position vis-à-vis the euro. A fixed exchange rate or even compulsorily joining the exchange rate mechanism before accession are options.
Are British pro-Europeans pro-Europe?
Surely it is easier to make the case for European unity than explain all this away? And that brings us to the core point. When UK pro-Europeans use such negative language about our biggest achievements – the euro, Schengen, free movement – it does colour the debate. You have to be positive about Europe and what the union is. Otherwise don’t bother.
I’d like to thank Mike at this point; as a director of the Bylines Network, he shows real commitment to the public square by allowing this discussion in East Anglia Bylines. So let me give him and other British pro-Europeans a wee piece of advice. Don’t talk about being “forced” into the euro. Say:
“If we succeed in our application, we will have the opportunity to join the euro.”
East Anglia Bylines offered Mike Galsworthy a right of reply. Here is his response:
Niall makes some very fair criticisms and some strong points. It’s an excellent article, which I encourage others to read and share.
He’s not alone, either. I’ve told others I’m preparing a video on the benefits of joining the euro because, as I said in my original video, I do think it would be good for the UK. There are numerous benefits and, interestingly, the demographics are increasingly on our side. I’ve already drafted most of the script, so I’d better get on with recording it!
Where I got it wrong was the framing. I presented the euro as something that could be avoided, when what I was really trying to explain was that countries join when the timing and circumstances are right for them. The point I wanted to make was that people shouldn’t fear being “forced” into the euro.
I also shouldn’t have described it as “not a serious commitment”. It is a treaty commitment and should be treated as such.
I think I was too focused on countering claims by Farage, Johnson and others that joining the EU automatically forces the UK into the euro. I wanted to give our audience an immediate response to that argument. But Niall is right that, ultimately, we do need to make the positive case for the euro itself, and too many of us have avoided doing that.
So, it’s time to change that. We need to start having this conversation and finding the language, evidence and arguments that resonate. Please consider my original video a first, rather clumsy, step into an area where we need to become much more sure-footed.
More from East Anglia Bylines
