Watching from the sidelines

Date: 14/03/1996

THESE are frustrating times for the UK's opposition Labour Party as it contemplates the country's future in the EU.

It enjoys a record lead over the Conservative government in domestic opinion polls and has high hopes of taking office, but is doomed meanwhile to watch the unfolding negotiations on the Union's future from the sidelines.

Joyce Quin, the party's spokeswoman on Europe, acknowledges “this is part of the general frustration we now feel in what is really a pre-election period which could go on for up to a year”.

But although Labour will be absent from the launch of the Intergovernmental Conference in Turin at the end of the month, the party is confident it will be in government before the IGC ends and thus involved in the final stage of negotiations to redraft the Maastricht Treaty.

“It is very important for Labour, hoping to be the next government, to monitor the IGC and to develop our own thoughts. I do not want to minimise the difficulties of coming into a process late, but I am confident we will have a clear idea of where the talks have reached and the areas still up for discussion,” Quin predicts.

Labour began refining its own EU strategy last year and won unanimous approval from its annual conference for its policy document, The Future of the European Union.

A working group under party leader Tony Blair brings together senior officials, members of the shadow cabinet and leading Labour MEPs to hone and refine policy as the negotiations unfold.

Cynics suggest that, with one or two minor exceptions, a Labour government would operate a European policy similar to its Conservative opponents. Quin denies this, insisting there would be strong differences of both substance and style.

“I feel the Tories are isolated. They are out on a limb, even in their own political family in Europe. I sometimes feel there is more of a meeting of minds between Christian Democrats and us than there is between them and the Conservatives, particularly on issues like social policy. We are not developing our policies in isolation,” she says.

Once in power, Labour has pledged to sign up to the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty - rejecting Conservative claims that staying out of this area protects British business from unnecessary costs and red tape.

Quin contrasts Labour's “generally positive attitude towards the European Union” with the “negative and divided stance” of the current government, adding: “I feel there is often bewilderment in Europe at the government's stance. John Major talks of wanting to be at the heart of Europe, but he is seen to be sitting on the sidelines.”

In Brussels last week with senior Labour figures, including Shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown and Shadow Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, to raise party funds and set out their policy stall, Quin points to further differences.

“Labour is trying to show that the Union is of direct relevance to what we are trying to do in the UK. I want to stress the theme of consistency. What we are trying to do at home, we are also trying to do in Europe. We want to bring more democracy into European institutions and into our own. We want to bring the Union in naturally, not as something foreign. We are very keen to present the Union as part of the domestic agenda,” she stresses.

One of the most visible changes would be in economic policy, where Labour strongly supports coordinated European projects to promote economic recovery. It accepts that the convergence criteria for a single currency should remain unchanged, but insists the Union should not ignore the need for employment creation measures and a high degree of social protection.

In contrast to the current government, which considers social and environmental policies as essentially national responsibilities, Labour envisages a strong Union role. A change of government, says Quin, would also give fresh impetus to the general search for more democratic accountability and effective implementation of the principle of subsidiarity and devolution of power.

But in a number of policy areas, there would be considerable consistency in the UK's dealings with its EU partners whether Labour or Conservative ministers were representing the country in Brussels.

Labour is opposed to any idea of majority voting on taxation issues and believes that unanimity, and the Maastricht pillar structure, should continue to operate on judicial and home affairs matters and in the development of a common foreign and security policy. Justifying this stance, Quin argues: “These are issues where national sensitivities are particularly acute.”

Labour and their Conservative opponents also share a mutual suspicion of plans for greater policy flexibility being promoted by the Commission. If adopted, these would allow those countries which so desired to integrate their policies in certain areas without being frustrated by a small minority opposed to the idea.

“We are not very keen on this in case it starts to lead to the development of a two-tier Europe. We do not want dangerous precedents to be established in that area,” explains Quin.

On the institutional front, Labour would also defend the current status quo under which the five big member states have two European Commissioners. But the party has a vastly more sympathetic approach towards the European Parliament than the current government.

“We would like to see the European Parliament's role and influence enhanced in various ways,” explains Quin, who was herself a Labour MEP for a decade before moving to Westminster in 1989.

The party would therefore support an extension of the European Parliament's powers, giving it co-decision rights in all policy areas where governments approve legislation by majority vote - a stance favoured by most other EU member states. Labour would also grant MEPs greater budgetary powers by abolishing the existing distinctions between compulsory and non-compulsory spending.

The immediate practical effect of such a move would give MEPs the final say over agricultural spending - which accounts for roughly half of the annual Union's

85-billion-ecu budget - for the first time.

“There are a lot of anomalies and we are trying to do something about them. We see the MEPs' scrutiny role as very much helping the democratic input into Union decision-making and there is no conflict with accompanying this with increasing the scrutiny role of national parliaments,” says Quin.

Similarly, Labour's European affairs spokeswoman acknowledges the new, more confident and businesslike atmosphere the Parliament projects as it continues its search for a more influential role in the Union.

“It is only a few years since I left, but there is a huge difference in atmosphere. It is very purposeful and key committee members now negotiate with the Commission and the Council of Ministers. With greater power has come responsibility and that is very good to see,” she observes.

A change of government in the UK would not lead to any weakening in the country's commitment to enlargement, although Labour insists the policy is no Trojan horse to undermine closer European integration.

“Enlargement is often described as a problem. Really it is an opportunity. We believe there is a political, economic and moral necessity to have enlargement. We are not doing it to weaken the Union and we totally reject the idea of using it to turn the Union into a free trade area,” stresses Quin.

EU members who contrast Major's proud claim of putting the UK at the heart of Europe with the country's current stance on many central Union issues, will wait to see whether a Labour government's actions match its words before passing judgement. Quin is confident that when in power, the party would be neither obstructive nor a soft touch.

“We will behave as every country behaves. We want to see progress made, but we are not in the business of selling valid national interests down the river. I feel that a lot of the policies we are putting forward will be in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the Union,” she insists.