David Cameron wants devo max for Britain in Europe. His fear of direct democracy will land us with the worst of both worlds
David Cameron may yet go down to history as the man who pushed Scotland away from England and England away from Europe. That would earn him a place in the schoolbooks, though not the one he might like. On both Scotland and the EU, his stance risks triggering a dynamic that he cannot control.
Blairishly brilliant at presentation, supremely self-confident, handling the premiership as if he had been born in 10 Downing Street, Cameron radiates firmness, charm and competence. Initially, I bought it. His politics are not mine, but I thought Britain could do worse than to have a competent, pragmatic, liberal conservative prime minister, in coalition with liberals. But as the months go by, as mistake has followed mistake – over the EU, Scotland, benefits reform, NHS reform – a still, small voice has been nagging in my ear: maybe he doesn't know what he's doing, after all?
On Scotland and the EU, his positions are contradictory. When Scotland's nationalist leader Alex Salmond wants a three-way referendum, including the option of "devo max" (maximum devolution) as an alternative to full independence, Cameron says: that's nonsense – a referendum needs a clear, binary choice. He's right about that.
Yet devo max is precisely what he seeks for Britain in relation to the EU. He insists on a clear "in or out" choice for Scotland in relation to the British union. He ducks and weaves, rubbing all our European partners up the wrong way, to avoid a clear "in or out" choice for Britain in relation to the European Union.
And what has he got for his pains? In December, when he "vetoed" the German proposal for an all-EU treaty to endorse a fiscal compact for the eurozone, he was cheered to the echo by Eurosceptic backbenchers at Westminster. Most of our European partners were angry and dismayed. Asked at Davos last week why more was not being done to ensure the full involvement of all EU members and institutions in arrangements for saving the eurozone, Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, said: "I would like to give you the mobile number of David Cameron."
But if you look at the fiscal compact treaty agreed in Brussels on Monday, you find it pullulating with references to EU institutions – commission, council, court of justice, even the parliament. It is more complicated than it would otherwise have been (the preamble alone runs to more than three pages in my printout), but essentially this is most of the EU going ahead with a German-led framework for saving the eurozone.
Whether it's a good way forward is another question. Were it not for Angela Merkel's need to reassure German public opinion, we would not have a new treaty. Most of this could be done under existing treaties and the so-called "six pack" of EU regulations. As macroeconomic policy, the German prescription is not sufficient to pull the European economy out of crisis. If across-the-continent budget cuts deepen recession, a debt-reduction pact could end up being, in effect, a debt-increase pact. Germany faces a rising chorus of well-informed criticism on exactly this point.
The question is: what does non-euro Britain gain by standing aside from this fiscal compact that non-euro Sweden loses by signing it? The answer: less than nothing. The future regulatory challenge to the City of London is no smaller. Britain will have fewer allies when it comes. If the eurozone gets more sickly on its cocktail of Greek ouzo and German beer, the British economy will be just as hard hit.
Cameron gave a fine speech in Davos, analysing the troubles of the eurozone. Much of his analysis was spot on. But his reception was at best lukewarm. For he came across like a man in white tie and top hat standing on the edge of an open sewer which a group of concerned residents is trying to clear, exclaiming: "Now come on you chaps, you really must dig harder; look, there's a mighty pile of turds over there, I would strongly advise you to get a larger spade."
Both tactically and strategically, Cameron's devo max for Britain will end up minimising British influence on the continent while not reducing British vulnerability to the consequences of what happens there.
Devo max for Scotland would have a different dynamic. In the short term, it might well be a good deal for Scotland, which could continue to enjoy the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom while reducing still further its membership costs. But the English would soon wake up to that. At least one recent poll has shown a larger percentage for Scottish independence among the English than among the Scots. When Czechoslovakia broke up, it was the Slovak nationalist insistence on its version of devo max that started the story, but it was the Czechs, under the forceful leadership of Václav Klaus, who gave the final push. The same could happen here, in our disuniting kingdom.
There's a simple solution to both problems, one that speaks to what we like to regard as a trait of – according to taste – Scottish, English and/or British national character. That solution is: ask a straight question, get a straight answer. Ask the people directly, that is, not the politicians. In a representative democracy you should not try this too often – but these are two exceptional and, in a larger sense, constitutional moments.
Before the next election, scheduled for 2015, we need two referendums. In the Scottish one, planned for 2014, the Scottish government wants to ask the Scots: "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" That's good enough, provided it's the only question on the paper.
The British one could ask: "Should Britain remain a member of the European Union?" By 2014 we'll have a better idea of what that involves, as the wider effects of a eurozone fiscal union become clear (or it has collapsed). There's a remarkable symmetry about the responses I get when I suggest this to strong British supporters of European integration and to some forceful opponents. Both "Europhiles" and some "Europhobes" are privately horrified at the idea of a straight "in or out" referendum. "Why?" I ask. "Because we'd lose!" Europhiles think the Brits would vote to leave the EU; Europhobes think they would vote to stay.
As someone who wants Scotland to stay in Britain and Britain to stay in Europe, I think we should take the risks of democracy. Let us write our own history.
Twitter: @fromtga