An opportunity for reform by consensus

By Mary Creagh, Chair of LME

I am both pro-Europe and pro-reform. Europe is the strongest political union in the world and the UK 's most important market. It offers tremendous strengths for a country like ours, central to tackling the 21 st century problems of climate change, organised crime, human trafficking and terrorism. I want to see the EU reformed so that it can be more effective in facing these new challenges. That is why it is vital to secure an amending treaty at the European Council meeting in June that is good both for Britain and the EU.

Many of the reforms contained in the EU Constitution would reduce bureaucracy. Reducing the number of Commissioners, capping the size of the Parliament, and getting rid of the rotating EU Presidency are all sensible measures. Rabid anti-Europeans claim that a scaled down amending treaty is just a way of introducing the Constitution by the back door. In fact, the reverse is true – I expect total rejection of the parts of the Constitution that were politically unpalatable. The proposed Charter of Rights, which currently only applies to the EU institutions, was seen to overstep the mark in the balance between national and European sovereignty. Plans for an EU flag and anthem, and formal titles of ‘EU Foreign Minister' and ‘EU' President' caused confusion and anxiety and should be dropped.

Although the Constitution was approved by 18 countries, its rejection by French and Dutch voters showed a fundamental questioning of the nature and purpose of an enlarged EU of 27 countries. But you would be hard pressed to find anyone in Europe who does not recognise that reform is needed to create a more flexible and transparent EU of 27 countries. Crucially, reform is also needed to make the EU easier to understand for citizens. The majority of proposals were uncontroversial and should be introduced without delay: reforms to increase accountability and scrutiny by national parliaments are vital to ensure that the EU is properly accountable to member states and citizens; giving the European Parliament scrutiny of the agricultural budget; introducing m ore flexibility where not all countries want to join in a new policy; formalising arrangements to allow groups of countries to opt in or out of policies concerning frontiers, asylum and police & judicial cooperation.

These changes would make the EU a more flexible, transparent and democratic body, ready to take effective action on vital international issues. Only blinkered ideologues would reject this case for change. I am referring, of course, to the Tory Party. They are still blindly groping their way over Europe . They have put David Cameron's flagship (and only!) European policy, withdrawal from the European People's Party in the European Parliament, on indefinite hold. They have scoured European capitals for other parties who wish to lose influence in the European Parliament. Unsurprisingly, they have met few takers. They attack the EU for not being more accountable and transparent, yet refuse to support the process that will see these transformations occur. As ever, they will the end but not the means. And their more right wing fringes seriously advocate a catastrophic withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

Calls for a referendum on an amending treaty are also a red herring - in 18 years of Tory Government the idea of a referendum was never even floated, even for the major amending treaties decided at Amsterdam and Maastricht . But today the Tories would demand for a referendum on the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest if they thought it would get them a day's headlines.

The European Union is absolutely central to Britain 's future. June's summit will, hopefully, mark a new direction for Europe with clarity over the question of the future direction, governance and purpose of an enlarged EU of 27 countries.

• This article first appeared in issue 150 of Parliamentary Monitor