Sovereignty and the EU
No word in the debate about Europe causes more confusion than the word sovereignty. This paper seeks to clarify the subject.
National sovereignty, sometimes used to mean national independence, has to be viewed against the background of the interdependence of modern states. When the concept of the modern nation state emerged about 400 years ago, the Sovereign, Emperor or King, was relatively free of constraints on his freedom of action. But even then trade and alliances made this freedom relative. The history of the 20th century is one of growing interdependence. In the 21st century even the only superpower, the USA, finds itself with limits on its freedom of action.
The role of Parliament is an issue. The advocates of an absolute definition of parliamentary sovereignty argue that the acid test is whether Parliament remains free to change or reverse decisions that the UK Government has approved in the EU Council or even Treaties that Parliament has itself ratified. Many treaties contain an abrogation clause, with a period of notice. In such cases there is no problem. In the case of the EU, where the treaties are intended to be permanent, the situation is less simple. The UK Parliament could certainly legislate to overthrow an EU measure, but the European Court would rule this action illegal. If the Government of the day, supported by Parliament, refused to comply, there would be a major crisis and, failing a compromise, Britain would find itself on a path which would lead to withdrawal. No one could prevent the UK Parliament from deciding to leave the EU, despite its ratification of the Treaty of Accession and the 1975 referendum (though there would be significant costs).
There are other uses of the word sovereignty. Nation states are said to give up part of their sovereignty, for example by signing a Treaty or by agreeing to an EU Directive which removes the right of decision from the national government or parliament in a particular field. Or they are said to share or pool sovereignty by agreeing to common action though EU institutions, thus participating in decisions taken by the EU in accordance with its procedures, and no longer retaining the right to act unilaterally. In this use of sovereignty it virtually means the same as freedom to decide unilaterally.
All countries, both inside and outside the EU, have given up or pooled some sovereignty. Mrs Thatcher was right when she said, at the time of the 1975 Referendum on Europe:
“Almost every major nation has been obliged by the pressures of the post-war world to pool significant areas of sovereignty so as to create more effective political units.”
Examples are NATO, the UN or the WTO. Nations come together to protect the environment, resist threats to international peace and security, promote free trade and investment and defend human rights, to name but a few. Each time a country joins an international organisation or signs a Treaty, it restricts its freedom of action and thus gives up a part of its sovereignty or independence, even if only a small part. Countries are prepared to pool sovereignty in particular areas because they recognise the practical benefits of doing so. Approaching common problems by participating in collective decision making with appropriate partners in reality gives countries more effective control over global events and problems than they could possibly hope to wield were they to continue to act alone.
It is often forgotten how much sovereignty/independence Britain has shared outside the EU. In each case, we have done so to secure benefits for the people of this country. NATO of course is the prime example since the ability to defend itself is central to the concept of the nation state and its sovereignty. Britain is committed to intervene in the common defence if another member is attacked, and the degree of cooperation is such that we have disposed of our forces in such a way that it would now be extremely difficult for most member states to take military action alone in all but the most limited of scenarios. The Council of Europe agrees conventions, of which that on Human Rights (with its Court to adjudicate) is of huge importance. That on Torture allows inspections of prisons without warning. The Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe imposes monitoring forces and limits their number, location and activities. In the economic field the IMF can impose conditions if a country gets into financial trouble (the UK has not been immune!). The WTO has strict policies – and much more besides. The idea that we would have unfettered sovereignty outside the EU is not correct.
There are those who argue that globalisation, multinational corporations and organisations, the internet, the speed of modern transport and communications etc mean that the concept of the sovereign state does not have a future. But the abolition of the nation state does not figure on any serious agenda. Ask any European politician whether his or her country is a sovereign nation state and you will receive an emphatic ‘yes’ for an answer, even if further probing would reveal consciousness of the limitations on its freedom of action. The ability to decide nationally on a whole range of matters, such as taxation, social security, health and education, are still important to most people.
Nevertheless in several countries, including the US and the UK, the idea of rolling back the frontiers of international co-operation has gained some ground. Isolationists speak as though sovereignty was not only absolute, but an absolute good. They ignore the fact that in the modern world it has become necessary to give up some freedom of action to achieve common ends. If there were no international rules about hunting whales, there would be no whales! In the particular case of the EU, the Single European Act of 1985, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, with its huge increase in the fields covered by majority voting and the nearly 300 Directives required to complete the Single Market which followed, was a major sharing of sovereignty. This was required if the non-tariff barriers to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people were to come down. That the Single Market is a good thing is not in dispute and sharing of sovereignty was indispensable to achieve it.
The reality is that both in the EU and elsewhere, pooling of sovereignty to achieve shared objectives will certainly need to continue. Drugs, international crime, money laundering, trade, the environment and action against terrorism are only some of the things that require common action. The judgement as to whether to act in common or not in each case will continue to be made on the basis of practical arguments about efficacy. It is the role of the Heads of Government to ensure that the democratically elected representatives of the member states remain the driving force behind EU action. But many things do not require any pooling of sovereignty. Indeed there is a growing consensus in the EU that some things are better dealt with nationally. Delors himself, the arch-demon of anti-European ideology, has said to the French Senate: “areas like education, health, employment, and social security, in short everything which creates social cohesion, must remain national competencies”.
The key question is whether an important share in EU decisions in fields which require joint action makes it worthwhile to continue the argument on the inside rather than alienating our European partners and having a limited freedom of action outside. This is where we can plainly see the strength of the argument that it is important to gain and retain influence.
To conclude, sovereignty is a dynamic concept. It is in practice relative, not absolute. Much sovereignty has been shared already, but nothing essential to the well-being and sense of identity of the people of the member states has been lost. The sovereign nation state will be with us for the foreseeable future, even if its influence over some areas of policy will be much less than in the past. Meanwhile countries will best protect and further their interests by not hesitating to exercise some of their sovereignty collectively to achieve their aims.
