Crack in the Alliance? The last election has not only rocked the British political scene, it also left UK-French relations on shaky ground. UK Prime Minister David Cameron wanted to strengthen his position as Europe’s “indispensable nation,” and had come out strongly in favor of a European Union budget of over €1 trillion to support a new “European renaissance.” However, a campaign promise to hold a referendum on the British involvement in the European Union caused a stir, with many Britons questioning the value of EU membership and the added expenses to their economy. Cameron’s coalition had lost its majority in parliament. By offering a referendum on its European Union membership, Cameron had essentially made his coalition partner UKIP the kingmaker. With a majority in parliament, Cameron could simply have forced UKIP to back his position in the European Union. Instead, he set up a debate on Britain’s future in Europe. It was his right to do so, but the British media and others are quick to pick up the story and suggest that Cameron caved to a political rival. Cameron may well have calculated that it is in his best interest to appear to cede authority over Britain’s European agenda to the British parliament and parliamentarians from both the Conservative and the Labour parties. So, having been forced to a referendum, Cameron may still be hoping for a “Yes” vote, even if he will now have to contend with a newly strengthened UKIP. A Yes vote would allow him to have his cake and eat it, i.e., keep his position as “indispensable nation” while still pursuing European reform – just not at the expense of the UK’s financial standing. At the same time, Cameron does not want to seem to cede authority to EU institutions or other EU nations. For that reason, the question put to the British electorate remains crucial. Cameron and his party – both conservative and labor – must ensure that the question that will go to the electorate is worded in a way that will give it a broad appeal. However, it should not appear to endorse the EU at the expense of Britain’s EU partners. Instead, it should be a question which gives the British electorate the option of accepting the reform of Europe that the British political leadership wants to pursue or remain an EU member state, if its interests are not being served. Britain’s Future is Its Own The British electorate will not understand an EU referendum campaign which suggests that a positive vote for Britain’s European membership is a statement of approval for the entire European Union. At least in Britain’s case, the EU is not an integrated whole, so one cannot just vote “Yes” in order to express support for the EU. The first question put to the British electorate should be: “Are you in favor of continued British membership in the European Union?” If the British electorate answers “Yes” to that question, then the second question should be: “Should the British government be free to alter certain aspects of the European Union, particularly the cost to British taxpayers of being a member of the European Union? Should these changes be approved by the European Parliament and the European Council?” Such a question will give Cameron plenty of wiggle room for EU reform, without undermining his authority or appearing to be an indictment of the European Union as a whole. Such an approach would also give Cameron and the British people the chance to decide whether they want Britain’s membership in the EU to continue. The issue of British sovereignty is vital in this debate. The UK voted by 62% to 38% in favor of the EU in 1975. If the British people now want to change this position, that is of course their right and should be respected. On the other hand, it is the British people who elect the members of parliament who will set the direction for Britain’s future as part of the European Union. It is therefore also the British people who should decide what is in the British national interest. Britain has a strong tradition of sovereign decision-making, from the Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Bill of Rights of 1689. If the British electorate wishes to change that tradition, then it is the British people who should decide. The same logic applies to Northern Ireland. In 2006, the UK held its referendum on whether to retain Northern Ireland within the European Union. A majority of Northern Ireland’s electorate voted in favor of remaining in the European Union. What would the British electorate make of a subsequent decision to leave Northern Ireland out of the European Union? If a subsequent decision is made, should Northern Ireland be part of an EU referendum campaign? What should the UK’s future in relation to Northern Ireland be? Should all EU states have the same relationship to the UK’s future? Would Ireland – which unlike Scotland is a member of the EU – support or oppose the establishment of a separate referendum in Northern Ireland to join or remain an EU member state? Should a second EU referendum be held in Northern Ireland if a referendum is called to confirm or deny a place for Northern Ireland in the European Union? Northern Ireland is such a complex case, as the British and the Irish have differing legal systems, differing languages, and a history of civil strife, religious division and, since 1920, a border between the North and the South. The British government cannot decide for the Irish people as to whether Northern Ireland should be allowed to remain in the European Union. As with Scotland, should it be allowed to withdraw from the European Union? If Northern Ireland were to remain in the European Union, what sort of role would it have in the EU and what would it be allowed to vote on? Would it share the opt-out from EU military integration which applies to the UK and which has been a contentious issue in the Scottish referendum? Should it be allowed to renegotiate its place in the European Union? If the British electorate wishes to reconsider whether or not to remain a member of the European Union, the decision must be a sovereign one. This means that the British electorate must have the right to decide on its own future. British Independence vs. European Integration The UK has a long tradition of maintaining sovereignty within a European context. At the same time, many British voters seem to have had a problem grasping the complexities of the European Union. The EU is often referred to as a “superstate,” and it is seen by many as having been an integrated and co-ordinated economic union. However, the reality is that Britain has been a full member state in this union since 1973 and all of its constituent countries voted in favor of Britain’s continued membership of the EU in 1975. In the years since then, it has become obvious that European countries have varying ideas about what this European integration means. The UK has been the leader of the eurozone when it comes to European integration. But even the British are now beginning to ask questions. David Cameron has asked whether it is in the UK’s best interests to be in the eurozone and whether a United Kingdom exit from the eurozone is now on the table. These questions have also been raised in France. French President Francois Hollande even suggested that there could be a two-tier Europe – one group without a euro. The truth is that the British electorate – like every other European electorate – should be free to make up its own mind about the European Union’s future. At the same time, a British EU referendum campaign should allow for a strong debate on Britain’s future in the European Union. It should be a debate that is based on facts and on all of the different options that exist as part of this debate. Asking British voters to consider the implications of a No vote and of a Yes vote should be a debate that allows for the presentation of the facts and of all the possible solutions that could be proposed for the future of Britain’s European Union membership. A European Union in Transition Much is made of the UK as a leader of European integration, but it is equally important to note that British politicians like David Cameron and British political parties like the Conservatives are keen to see a reform of the European Union that works for Britain and for Europe. So, while it may have become popular to suggest that European integration was all part of a conspiracy to turn the whole world into European, in fact it was also an attempt to stabilize Europe as a continent after the devastation of the Second World War. Perhaps what is necessary is an era of integration that is more limited and more targeted, one in which more countries are allowed to pick and choose what aspects they wish to pursue and what they want to reject. If there is not some sort of centralization, then one needs to be aware that the European Union could end up with several different blocs – a Europe