This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/the-guardian-view-on-the-pro-eu-campaign-getting-to-the-nub

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on the pro-EU campaign: getting to the nub The Guardian view on the pro-EU campaign: getting to the nub
(about 17 hours later)
In his speech to the Conservative conference last week, David Cameron promised to “fight hard” in his renegotiation of European Union membership, but he gave only one example of the kind of victory he has in mind. “Britain is not interested in ‘ever-closer union’,” he said. “I will put that right.” In his speech to the Conservative conference last week, David Cameron promised to “fight hard” in his renegotiation of European Union membership, but he gave only one example of the kind of victory he has in mind. “Britain is not interested in ‘ever-closer union’,” he said. “I will put that right.”
This is a tactical game. The “ever-closer union” formula comes from the Treaty of Rome, the EU’s founding text. Quitters see it as proof that the project has federalising momentum in its DNA; so only exit can save the UK from absorption into a United States of Europe. But it is an open secret in Brussels that some form of exemption from “ever-closer union” – a protocol attached to the treaties – is available in the negotiations. The PM is setting the bar symbolically high and practically low. The rest of the short negotiation wishlist reported on in the Sunday Telegraph was similarly emblematic – such as an “explicit” statement that the euro is not the EU’s official currency, a mere nod at the established reality that sterling is here to stay. Downing Street insists it has not given up on grittier policy questions, but the emphasis on icons nonetheless represents an important realisation that a referendum fought defending the technicalities of a deal will be harder to win than one fought on the broader question of whether Britain is better or worse off inside the club.This is a tactical game. The “ever-closer union” formula comes from the Treaty of Rome, the EU’s founding text. Quitters see it as proof that the project has federalising momentum in its DNA; so only exit can save the UK from absorption into a United States of Europe. But it is an open secret in Brussels that some form of exemption from “ever-closer union” – a protocol attached to the treaties – is available in the negotiations. The PM is setting the bar symbolically high and practically low. The rest of the short negotiation wishlist reported on in the Sunday Telegraph was similarly emblematic – such as an “explicit” statement that the euro is not the EU’s official currency, a mere nod at the established reality that sterling is here to stay. Downing Street insists it has not given up on grittier policy questions, but the emphasis on icons nonetheless represents an important realisation that a referendum fought defending the technicalities of a deal will be harder to win than one fought on the broader question of whether Britain is better or worse off inside the club.
Related: The European Union needs reforming, not abandoning | Letter from Caroline Lucas MP
That is how the message will be framed when the official “remain” campaign launches on Monday. The strategy is to make the case based on Britain’s security and prosperity – to say that the challenges facing the country are global and that the EU, for all its flaws, provides the most effective forum for shaping our destiny. The chief merit to this argument is that it is true. The outers’ hostility to “Brussels” on the basis that “Brussels” is hostile to the UK is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By refusing to engage, Britain marginalises itself and finds its voice diminished. The natural end to that process is separation and the surrender of influence, with grim consequences in the spheres of trade, policing, security and climate change.That is how the message will be framed when the official “remain” campaign launches on Monday. The strategy is to make the case based on Britain’s security and prosperity – to say that the challenges facing the country are global and that the EU, for all its flaws, provides the most effective forum for shaping our destiny. The chief merit to this argument is that it is true. The outers’ hostility to “Brussels” on the basis that “Brussels” is hostile to the UK is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By refusing to engage, Britain marginalises itself and finds its voice diminished. The natural end to that process is separation and the surrender of influence, with grim consequences in the spheres of trade, policing, security and climate change.
An advantage to the slogan “Britain stronger in Europe”, as unveiled on Monday by the “remain” camp, is its optimistic orientation. The pro-EU campaign has studied the lessons from Better Together, the unloved but not entirely ineffective project to persuade Scots to reject independence last year, which of course they ultimately did. The weakness in that campaign was its failure to counter the nationalist claim to a monopoly on Scottish interests with a patriotic account of Scotland’s future made brighter by fellowship with England and Wales. Better Together relied on fraying historical loyalty and fear. There is no equivalent loyalty to the EU, and fear alone – lost jobs and shrunken investment – should not be the basis on which the country is invited to consider its standing in the world.An advantage to the slogan “Britain stronger in Europe”, as unveiled on Monday by the “remain” camp, is its optimistic orientation. The pro-EU campaign has studied the lessons from Better Together, the unloved but not entirely ineffective project to persuade Scots to reject independence last year, which of course they ultimately did. The weakness in that campaign was its failure to counter the nationalist claim to a monopoly on Scottish interests with a patriotic account of Scotland’s future made brighter by fellowship with England and Wales. Better Together relied on fraying historical loyalty and fear. There is no equivalent loyalty to the EU, and fear alone – lost jobs and shrunken investment – should not be the basis on which the country is invited to consider its standing in the world.
Inevitably the “remain” argument will play on the threat posed by a leap into the unknown. Moderate sceptics will hesitate before striding down the path indicated by a grinning Nigel Farage. But undecided voters will also be wary of a path illuminated by a political and financial elite for whom the joys of EU membership – the blurring of national borders for a freer flow of capital and labour – are self-evident. The task is to reassure waverers that the benefits of staying in accrue to the many not the few. That line is harder to sell when the eurozone struggles to shake off economic malaise and when EU institutions look paralysed in response to mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa.Inevitably the “remain” argument will play on the threat posed by a leap into the unknown. Moderate sceptics will hesitate before striding down the path indicated by a grinning Nigel Farage. But undecided voters will also be wary of a path illuminated by a political and financial elite for whom the joys of EU membership – the blurring of national borders for a freer flow of capital and labour – are self-evident. The task is to reassure waverers that the benefits of staying in accrue to the many not the few. That line is harder to sell when the eurozone struggles to shake off economic malaise and when EU institutions look paralysed in response to mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa.
The remain camp cannot pretend that all is well with the EU, but it can argue that the project is worth fixing, that Britain has something valuable to offer, and that other members want our contribution, recognising that the alternative is a lesser continent and a lesser Britain. There is a defeatist strain to the Brexit demand that can be countered with appeals to pragmatism and self-confidence as well as economic self-interest. This is what the prime minister was signalling in his speech: a relationship founded not on misty-eyed pursuit of “ever-closer union” but on realistic appraisal of where the country’s long-term interests lie. Mr Cameron does not have permission from his party to express that as robustly as he would like, but he will soon have to move on from concessions to implacable Tory grassroots and speak to those who are open to persuasion. In this respect his interests and those of the country are aligned. He knows Britain would be weaker outside the EU and that he will be finished as prime minister if he cannot convincingly make that case in the campaign.The remain camp cannot pretend that all is well with the EU, but it can argue that the project is worth fixing, that Britain has something valuable to offer, and that other members want our contribution, recognising that the alternative is a lesser continent and a lesser Britain. There is a defeatist strain to the Brexit demand that can be countered with appeals to pragmatism and self-confidence as well as economic self-interest. This is what the prime minister was signalling in his speech: a relationship founded not on misty-eyed pursuit of “ever-closer union” but on realistic appraisal of where the country’s long-term interests lie. Mr Cameron does not have permission from his party to express that as robustly as he would like, but he will soon have to move on from concessions to implacable Tory grassroots and speak to those who are open to persuasion. In this respect his interests and those of the country are aligned. He knows Britain would be weaker outside the EU and that he will be finished as prime minister if he cannot convincingly make that case in the campaign.