How to make the case

AFTER five months of vague statements of intent, David Cameron has at last set out in concrete terms his demands for changes in Britain’s relations with the European Union. The prime minister wants to make a deal with the EU’s leaders in December or early next year that would allow him to recommend a vote to remain in the union when he holds his planned referendum. Preparing for a fight, he insisted he was deadly serious and even threatened that, if he did not secure what he wanted, he might campaign to leave.

In truth his proposals, well trailed in advance, are small stuff, carefully calibrated to be winnable (see article). Some are cosmetic, such as exempting Britain from the goal of “ever closer union”. Others sound big but aren’t: a four-year wait before EU migrants claim welfare benefits is unlikely to cut the numbers drawn by Britain’s booming jobs market. Worthy demands for more trade deals and a bigger single market are already being met. And the main item on his wishlist is weighty but technocratic: guarantees that euro-zone countries cannot discriminate against non-euro members like Britain.

Eurosceptics are right to point out that these are hardly game-changing reforms. If the referendum is to be won, it must focus not on these minor changes, but on the underlying question of whether Britain is better off in or out. And in making that case, Mr Cameron needs a more upbeat message. The curmudgeonly tone he has used so far—a gambit to wring more concessions out of European partners—makes for an uninspiring campaign. Unless the government comes up with a more positive case quickly, it risks not only losing the referendum, but weakening Britain’s position in the event of a victory.

Accentuate the positive

The logic behind the negative arguments is sound. Britain would survive outside the EU, but most studies find that membership has benefited its economy. The out campaign fails to offer a good alternative. The examples of Norway, Switzerland and others are clear: if Britain wants to keep access to the single market, it will have to accept the EU’s rules (including free movement of labour), but with no say in drawing them up. Stressing the scary alternative worked, just, in Scotland’s independence referendum last year.

Yet relying on a downbeat message risks handing the out campaign the best tunes, even if they are misleading. Promises of restored national sovereignty, an end to immigration or being unshackled from the euro-zone corpse have a strong superficial appeal. So Mr Cameron needs also to make a positive case for membership. As it happens, he has plenty of arguments to choose from. One is to stress how far the EU is moving in Britain’s direction, with red tape being cut and several big trade deals under negotiation. A second is to beef up the case he is already making that the EU bolsters Britain’s national security, especially when it comes to dealing with Russia and other dangerous neighbours. In a nasty world, it makes sense to remain in a club that has growing foreign-policy clout.

Winning the referendum is not the only reason for Mr Cameron to push a more positive message. He also needs to prepare for a post-referendum world. One of the failings in Britain’s relations with the EU over the past five years has been that it has not played as important a role in Brussels as it could and should have. Britain has the club’s second-biggest economy and will by 2050 be its most populous country. Absence from the euro inevitably diminishes Britain’s influence in monetary affairs. But it should not weaken its role in the single market or in foreign policy.

One reason for Britain’s lack of influence is that Mr Cameron has too often been sidetracked by battles with his party’s Eurosceptics. After a vote to remain in, he would have a chance to shut them up. That will be harder to do if his campaign has argued simply that the EU is a terrible club but leaving it would be even worse. The failure to persuade Scots that their membership of the United Kingdom was a good thing, rather than merely the least bad, is one reason why last year’s referendum did nothing to reduce demands for independence. Mr Cameron must not make the same mistake with Europe: only by convincing them of the benefits of membership will he ensure that Britons have the stomach not just to stay reluctantly in the EU, but to play a bigger, bolder role in it.