The article reviewing two books on Britain and Europe in The Economist January 19th 2013, p. 74, Forty years on, provides a lesson from history for Eurosceptics as well as Prime Minister David Cameron, as he wrestles with the issue of a referendum on continuing British membership of the European Union (EU).
Eurosceptics should be aware that forty years ago Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community (EEC), because the other options of a free-trade area, the Commonwealth, links to the US or going it alone, were all judged even less attractive. Gaining global influence through EEC membership was also considered to outweigh the rather weak even negative economic case for entry.
In the successful 1975 EU referendum voters were two-to-one in favour of continued membership, public opinion having rapidly swung towards a yes vote following renegotiation of the terms of membership by Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson. The parallel case today for Mr Cameron and his team cannot be considered within the same historical context. In the 1970s there was more European goodwill towards Britain partly as a result of the rather undiplomatic actions of French President Charles de Gaulle in twice vetoing British membership applications. The terms of entry were also generally recognised as being too heavily weighted against the British on budget, agriculture, fisheries etc. Significantly at the time, most of the press and politicians campaigned for a yes vote.
The review article concludes by suggesting that Mr Cameron would be well-advised to read both books and to ponder their lessons:
? Britain?s Quest for a Role: A Diplomatic Memoir from Europe to the UN. By David Hannay. I.B. Tauris.
? The Official History of Britain and the European Community, 1963-1975. By Stephan Wall. Routledge.
Is EU membership crucial to Britain?s (perhaps continuing) search for a post-imperial role, as seen by Lord Hannay in his above book? A long-serving British diplomat he argues from first-hand experience that British influence in Washington DC, and in the wider world, now flows through Brussels, and it would be weakened if the country ended up outside the EU. This view is echoed by the Americans who have recently made it clear that they would prefer an outwards-looking Britain within the EU, rather than an inwards-looking Britain outside the EU.
Archive for the ‘Federal EU?’ Category
EU Referendum: A Lesson from History.
samedi, janvier 19th, 2013A Referendum on Britain remaining in the European Union – by Michael Webster
vendredi, janvier 11th, 2013I consider the idea of Britain holding a popular referendum on whether to remain in the European Union an unwise and even disconcerting one. This is a matter of primordial importance , probably the most vital one facing the country for decades to come and to have it decided by a referendum has no justification in my mind.
I will cite three reasons for this.
First of all, referenda are highly vulnerable to demagoguery, resulting in emotions and passions taking the place of serious reflection. In Britain the most likely culprits will be our popular press. I find it only too easy to imagine their making hay of some lapse of judgement or a minor scandal in the Brussels Commission and thus influencing perhaps some vital number of votes.
Secondly, how is the question of the phrasing of the question to be put to the vote to be decided and by whom. This could, of course, be simply put. ?Do you want Britain to remain in or to quit the Union?? And on these dozen simple words would depend one of the most fateful decisions to be made by this country. Prime Minister Cameron has just published an article pointing out that there is a third choice: to negotiate a compromise position on the periphery of the Union. The question could thus be further embellished but every additional word would be greatly controversial in its significance.
Lastly and most importantly, this is a travesty of the principle of representative government and of the accepted conventions by which our country has historically been governed. Representative government means that we elect, at least theoretically, the most competent people to represent us in Parliament.
There the issues can be the subject of mature debate by members with more intimate knowledge and experience, with Commissions able to consult authorities on the question. The issues will then be re-considered by the House of Lords, whose members are usually people of wide experience and competence.
This is the correct procedure for this vital matter and the idea of submitting it, with all its profound political and economic implications, to a popular referendum fills me with great concern and even trepidation.
Michael Webster
The Wrong Battle by Michael Webster
jeudi, décembre 27th, 2012Leading figures in the British community in France and in our own British Conservatives in Paris (BCiP) are struggling, to little effect, to obtain voting rights for citizens living abroad but this is of minor importance compared with another struggle which may confront them.
The efforts to gain voting rights are for those who have lived abroad for more than 15 years: not the right to vote for MPs who would defend the rights of expatriates, a privilege which French citizens abroad enjoy, but a vote in whatever constituency with which they may feel an affinity, even though they may not know the MP’s name or the major concerns of his constituents.
No, I write of another threatened struggle. A year ago I was treating threats of Britain voting to leave the European Union as a diverting quirk, typical of my countrymen. Now it is dawning on me that the threat is becoming a real one. The Economist this week also turns its attention to the matter, devoting its cover and two principal articles to the subject.
Both in the populace and in political circles it is taking on an immediacy which should give us serious concern. Apart from all the diplomatic, political, economic and trade issues at stake and whatever your views on them, Britain’s leaving the EU might have considerable repercussions on British citizens living on the Continent. Without being any sort of authority on the subject, I would wager that there would be increased financial difficulties and bureaucratic problems ten years down the road regarding ?cartes de sejours?, importing of household goods, health insurance, pensions etc., all of which would have to be re-negotiated.
I will not expatiate here on the advantages and disadvantages it would have for Britain. The Economist says our departure from Europe is becoming ?ever more possible?. Despite the fact that the leaders of the three main political parties, business leaders and the trade unions all want to stay in, 80 M.P.s of our Conservative party are pressing for a referendum and the polls say that over 50% of the population would vote in favour of leaving and only 30% would vote for staying.
So, I believe this to be more of an issue (than voting rights) on which we should be considering with great concern.
What do we do about UKIP? by Robin Baker
vendredi, décembre 7th, 2012The biggest danger to the Conservative Party?s chances of winning the general election due in 2015 is unquestionably UKIP. We lost the Corby by-election to Labour, the Conservative candidate only received 9,476 votes, compared with Labour?s 17,267. But the third party was UKIP, with 5,108. That, of course, is less than the Labour majority of 7,791, so UKIP did not cost us the seat. It is, nevertheless, almost 15% of the total vote. This demonstrates the seriousness of the threat to us that UKIP poses and the risk that it could cost us sufficient seats for us to lose the election in 2015.
So what do we do about them?
My own view is clear. We must fight them resolutely. Conservative Party policy on Europe is specific: ?We are committed to playing a leading role in the EU?. So we stay a member of the EU. UKIP?s policy is quite different: ?withdrawal from the European Union (EU) is central to UKIP?s message?. But there are those who take a different view, that is that to avoid UKIP appealing to Conservative Party voters, the Party must become more Eurosceptic. I have two problems with that. One is that the two positions are incompatible. One cannot be in favour of being ?committed to playing a leading role in the EU? and also of withdrawing. So the Conservative Party needs to convince the electorate that our policies on the EU are in the best interest of the country and that UKIP?s policy would be a catastrophe. My second problem is the risk that those members of the Conservative Party arguing for UKIP?s position are simply going to persuade potential Conservative voters to vote for UKIP instead of for us.
Those in favour of UKIP?s policy publish their arguments for it widely. These arguments need to be refuted. Here are some by leading Conservatives taken from the Better Off Out Group website:
The European Union is too diverse, too bureaucratic, too corporatist and too centralist to be a functioning democracy. We are happy to trade with our European friends and the rest of the world ? but we would prefer to govern ourselves. Lord Tebbit, senior cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher and former Chairman of the Conservative Party.
Of course the European Union has become more diverse, it has done so by admitting new member states, a policy strongly advocated by Britain under both Conservative and Labour Governments. The Conservative Party support Turkey?s candidature for membership, i.e. we are seeking to make it even more diverse.
That the EU is too bureaucratic is a common criticism, and one that is very easy to make, particularly if one doesn?t bother to check the details first. In fact the Commission has a staff of 30,000. Other European institutions, i.e. the Parliament and the European Court of Justice (n.b. this is nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights which was established by the Council of Europe before the EEC was created; this EU court ensures that EU institutions and EU member states respect their obligations under the Treaties), employ a further 18,000 and there are 8,000 in agencies all over Europe. So, a grand total of 50,000. That, by coincidence, is the same number as employed by Birmingham City Council. The number of civil servants employed by the UK Government is 479,000 (out of the 4.4 million total in the public sector costing 23% of total government expenditure). In France, civil servants number 2 million; the Commission only has three quarters of the staff employed by the City of Paris. What is remarkable is that this is achieved despite the fact that the EU has to work in 23 official languages and provide for interpretation between them, which obviously increases staff numbers. But, despite that, it spends only about 6% of its budget on staff, administration and building maintenance.
That it is too corporatist is an extraordinary criticism, particularly from a Conservative. The Commission?s Competition Directorate is highly effective and its work in preventing anti-competitive practices greatly benefits consumers in the EU (perhaps Lord Tebbit should ask Microsoft about that).
That it is too centralist as an argument commonly used by those who do not understand, or who perhaps are not prepared to admit, that a free trade area must have rules to prevent non-tariff barriers to trade being erected as protectionist measures. This has been known from our entry to the then EEC; in the debate on entry on the House of Commons in 1972 the Attorney General (the then Sir Geoffrey Howe) said: ?The concept of a common system of Community law, uniformly expressed, operating and enforced throughout the Community, is integral to the community system. If this country became a Member of the European Communities it would be accepting Community Law?. That was the position when we joined the EEC, it has never been concealed, it has never been in any doubt, and it remains the position now as that is the only way a common market can work. It has worked effectively in Britain?s interest, for example Germany excluded chocolate imports from the UK by an internal regulation on what could be sold as chocolate in Germany which British manufacturers did not meet. That German regulation was struck down by the Commission.
I believe in an independent Britain, Britain would be better off out of the failing European Union. It?s time to campaign for an independent Britain. Douglas Carswell, Conservative MP for Clacton.
To use the term ?failing? without any justification or even specifying in which sense he considers it failing is a very cheap rhetorical trick and, frankly, a dishonest one that insults the intelligence of Mr Carswell?s audience. In my view, a reasonable way of measuring success or failure in such a context is growth in GDP. The figures for percentage annual growth over the last three years (total 2012 is obviously a forecast at present) are:
…………………2010………………..2011………………….2012
EU………………2.1…………………..1.5…………………..-0.3
Euro zone….2.0…………………..1.4…………………..-0.4
UK………………1.8…………………..0.9…………………..-.03
Where is the EU failing Mr Carswell, particularly in comparison with the UK?
I believe we should leave the European Union and instead have free trade agreements with EU countries just as we do with many non-EU countries. David Nuttall, Conservative MP for Bury North.
That statement betrays an astonishing degree of ignorance. The UK has no free trade agreements with non-EU countries, apart from those that have been negotiated and agreed by the EU as a whole. Under the original Treaty of Rome there is a common external tariff for each non-EU country that all EU member states have to apply. Clearly a single market cannot operate without a common external tariff. So no EU member state could negotiate a free trade agreement with us were we to leave the EU. By staying as a member of the European Economic Area we could have such an agreement with the EU as a whole, but there are disadvantages in that explained below. However it is unthinkable that the EU would agree to a free trade area with us were we to refuse to remain in the EEA, because that would permit us to erect non-tariff barriers to EU imports.
Our country built our prosperity as world traders. Our future prosperity depends on us trading with China, India and the rest of the Commonwealth. It does not depend on being tied up in a backward-looking, inward facing, protection racket designed to prop up inefficient continental farmers and businesses. We want free trade with the EU, but we do not need to be members of it to have that. Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley.
Mr. Davies is correct in saying that we do not have to be members of the EU to have free trade with them. But, for the reasons already given, he would be being rather more honest were he to say that we do have to be members of the European Economic Area. The non EU countries who are EEA members (Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway), together with Switzerland that has a similar agreement with the EU, participate in the EU single market. To do that they have agreed to enact all EU legislation (except agriculture and fisheries) adopted by the EU, without any participation in the decision making process. They also make a substantial financial contribution to social and economic cohesion in the Internal Market but they receive no finance from EU funds. In Norway, this agreement is known as being a fax democracy, because it is said that the latest legislation that their parliament has to adopt is faxed to them by the European Commission. Is that what Mr. Davies wants for the UK?
Of course we would not have to be a member of the EEA. But were we not a member we would face the common external tariff being applied to what in the first three quarters of 2012 amounted to 51% of our exports. I would be interested to know how long Mr Davies thinks it would take us to increase exports to China and India (both of which the UK individually and the EU collectively are trying to do anyway) sufficiently to make up the trade that this would cost us.
Millions of British people have never had the chance to vote on whether or not to be in the EU. Philip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering.
No, they have not. But neither have they had had the chance to vote on whether or not to be in NATO which, for example, commits us to going to war should another NATO partner be attacked, nor whether or not to be in the United Nations, nor the World Trade Organisation, nor the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development or the International Energy Agency, both of these last two imposing important obligations on the UK. Why does not Mr Hollobone point out that, of all the 97 international organisations of which the UK is a member, the EU is the only one where our membership has been subject to a referendum and that, in that referendum, 67% of the votes were in favour of membership?
I agree with Margaret Thatcher on referenda. She approvingly quoted Clement Attlee as saying that they are ?a device of demagogues and dictators?. I am proud of the British tradition of parliamentary democracy; I think it the best way to be governed. And that has traditionally been the view of the Conservative Party. Those espousing referenda only do so because they know that they cannot get what they want any other way.
I am particularly opposed to referenda in relationship to membership of international organisations. Such organisations are a key part of the way in which relationships between different nation states function. For most of them, membership is thought of as permanent within the foreseeable future. To make the continuation of membership subject to periodical referenda would be a grave disruption of the current pattern of international relationships. Further, there is no provision in the Treaty of Rome for a member state to leave the organisation and, were we to do so, we would be in breach of the international treaty we signed in 1972. Does anyone really believe that the then members would have agreed to our entry had we told them that we would have occasional referenda to determine whether or not we stayed as members? Has the Conservative Party sunk so low that it has adopted the view of the Kaiser and regards an international treaty as nothing but a scrap of paper?
The politicians I have quoted above are persuading voters to support the policy of a political party that, as I have pointed out, is the Conservative Party?s enemy and a major threat to us at the next general election. They are totally wrong to think that this will make potential UKIP voters vote for us; those voters who are convinced by them will vote for UKIP.
Conservatives Abroad have recently asked their branches to adopt a rule to the effect that their members may only be members of a sister party, even in the country where that member lives, provided that that party has been approved by the Party Board but even if it is so approved, such members may not hold office. How is that compatible with prominent Conservatives holding public office being members of the Better Off Out Group?
So I have two conclusions. The first is that we must fight UKIP by explaining why Britain needs to remain in the EU:
1. We are an important part of a major trading block with a GDP exceeding that of the USA. That enables us and all EU member states to punch well above our weight in international trade negotiations.
2. Within that we are part of a single European market, largely created by the initiative of a British Commissioner in Brussels with Margaret Thatcher?s backing, in which British companies can trade freely without the disadvantages of tariff or non-tariff barriers.
3. That access to that single European market is particularly valuable for the UK because of the importance of our financial sector. It enables us to play a leading role and earn a leading share of financial sector profitability, a benefit that our European partners look at with envy. As a result, the financial sector contributes over 11% of UK Government tax receipts.
4. We are part of a group of countries with a common cultural and historical heritage co-operating together for the greater benefit of all.
5. Co-operation within the EU covers areas where action by individual nations within the limits of their national boundaries would be at best ineffective and at worst meaningless. An obvious example is environmental protection. Competition policy applied across the EU is another example giving wide benefits.
6. As citizens of the European Union we entitled to move freely, to live and to be employed anywhere within the Union. Also we can hold and transfer funds freely within the Union.
7. Citizens of the European Union living in a member state other than their own, are protected against discrimination against them by their own government in relation to social benefits. For example, British state pensioners living outside the EU have their pensions frozen, despite having paid the same contribution as those living in the UK whose pensions are increased to allow for inflation. Pensions of Britons resident in the EU cannot be frozen.
All these are real benefits, but we are allowing the case for them to go by default. We must trumpet them to defend Conservative Party policy.
Secondly we must take steps to prevent Party members prominent in public life giving public support to the policies of UKIP. The Better Off Out Group is a tool of UKIP, its purpose is to advance UKIP?s policy. UKIP is the enemy of the Conservative Party. So the Party must make membership of the Better Off Out Group incompatible with Conservative Party membership. Any MP, member of the Lords, MEP, member of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or local councillor who is and remains a Better Off Out Group member must have the Party whip withdrawn, be expelled from the Conservative Party and their constituency association or equivalent must be told that they are not eligible for re-selection.
That is how we must fight UKIP and increase our chances of winning the next election.
Robin Baker
President, BCiP
Britain in Europe: Some thoughts on an exit by Michael Webster
samedi, novembre 24th, 2012I have been inspired by a recently published article by one of our French members, Sophie Loussouarn, to write about something which should be a matter of grave concern to all of us and to which we risk paying too little attention.
This is the increasing likelihood that, in a few years, Britain will cease to be a member of the European Union. The Prime Minister has finally been compelled to accept the principle of holding a referendum on whether Britain stays in the Union or not. A recent opinion poll shows that 56% of the population, (68% of Conservatives), would vote in favour of leaving it. According to the poll, the better-educated part of the populace had a good-sized majority for staying in, the others for leaving it. This probably reflects the influence of the Europe-bashing of the popular Press. The leaders of the three political parties show a rare unanimity in believing Britain should remain a member (UKIP being opposed.)
As always, the phrasing of the questions asked in the referendum will be subjected to intense Party squabbling and powerfully influence the result. The matter is of such complication and portent that it is a very ill-suited one to be put to a popular vote.
The consequences are difficult to predict but what would be at stake would obviously be of great moment to the country. The issues at stake are diplomatic, political and economic. Isolated from the European Union, and isolated is the word for it, Britain’s role in world affairs would be greatly diminished. Politically, it would have a weak voice in European affairs. Economically, it would be bound to suffer as an outsider, unable to react to economic decisions being taken against its interests.
In the vital sphere of finance, it seems more likely that it would suffer, rather than profit from leaving; the same thing is presumably true of its trade.
Unable to play its role as a foothold and sounding-board for the United States in Europe, it is to be feared that in a generation its role in world affairs will be of no more importance than, say, that of a South Korea.
I have begun to realise, only recently, that the threat of our leaving the European Union is no longer a theoretical one but of immediate concern and one that should be of far greater concern to all of us.
Sophie, in her article, points out what a loss it would be to the Union in the event that Britain were to leave it but that is not a concern of this article.
UK’s Contribution to the European Union (EU) Budget – Michael Webster
vendredi, novembre 2nd, 2012The Prime Minister has just suffered a negative vote on his proposal to accept a freeze in real terms on the future EU Budget, the Commons saying instead that he must insist on a decrease. This is the subject of such current controversy that it is useful to be aware of the amounts involved.
What currently are the actual amounts involved in this EU budget? ( All figures are in billions (bn) of euros and very approximate.)
1. The total EU annual budget is ?130 bn and its admin. expense ?7 bn
2. The UK contribution is ?11.259 bn plus payment of ?3.750 bn for customs duties, TVA etc.
3. The UK receives back ?6.600 bn in benefits and gets a Thatcher rebate of ?3.600 bn.
4. Thus the net contribution of the UK is ?4.800 bn. This compares with net contributions of ?4.800 bn for France, ?7.500 bn for Germany and ?4.600bn for Italy. Other contributions are much smaller.
Note: the U.K. contribution would be ?8.400 bn without the Thatcher rebate.
5. The major recipients are Poland ?11.000 bn, Greece ?4.700 bn , Hungary, Belgium, Spain and Portugal each receiving about ?4.000 bn.
Added by Administrator
Whether this Commons vote has strengthened the hand of the Prime Minister in his forthcoming negotiations with the other member states is debatable as 17 of them are net recipients and, therefore, unlikely to accept a freeze in real terms on what they receive and even unlikelier to be able to accept a reduction, with all national budgets under pressure. Those negotiating on the other side of the table will also be aware that if they refuse to concede a decrease in the EU budget as proposed by the British as a starting position, Mr Cameron has already made it widely known that he would accept a freeze in real terms.
The Prime Minister needs to get the other major net contributors particularly Germany, France & Italy on his side to avoid being forced to exercise his veto; however, these other major contributors could be looking to trade off in exchange, some concessions by the British relating to other problems within the EU & Eurozone.
Read also This latest Tory rebellion was not just cynical, it was completely bogus
Note: According to this latest Guardian article « Britain’s actual net contribution in 2011 stood at £7.3bn, compared with £6.5bn for France and £11bn for Germany; without the rebate Britain would pay £10.9b« .
What about UKIP?
mercredi, octobre 10th, 2012What to do about UKIP is a question facing the Conservative party, looking forwards to the next General Election in May 2015. There has already been talk of some sort of UKIP-Conservative non-aggression pact. This allowed the UKIP leader Nigel Farage at their party conference the opportunity, which he of course took, to suggest a possible trade-off in exchange for an In/Out referendum on membership of the European Union (EU).
UKIP is currently riding high with some 10% of the popular vote in the opinion polls, benefiting not least from some Conservative right defections, including many who came of age under Mrs Thatcher. These are « Thatcher?s no-nonsense, self-made & self-employed people » who also contributed through UKIP to the failure of Prime Minister Cameron to obtain a clear majority in 2010. That is, according to this article on UKIP by Andrew Stuttaford of www.weeklystandard.com.
With the economy also still struggling to come out of recession, it is perhaps then not so surprising to find the Labour party rallying behind a « One Nation » marketing slogan, and not having to reveal any details their policy solutions for the country’s problems, given their comfortable lead of 10-14% over the Conservatives mid-term. Certainly Labour should explain how delaying cuts to major budget items , borrowing more to fund growth, increased taxing of wealth creators (when the top 10% already pay 50% of income tax), all taken together will not continue to increase the deficit & associated total debt, undermine confidence in the financial markets and increase the cost of UK borrowing, in a vicious circle.
Still, many things can happen between now and the next General Election, including the economy finally developing a regular growth pattern. The way also seems to be clearing towards a two-question (In/Out) referendum on Scottish independence, which would have a major and negative impact on a core vote of Labour if Scotland voted to leave the Union. It is also becoming increasingly likely that some sort of referendum on EU membership will be offered to the British people, an ?everything to lose but small chance of success? situation for UKIP to savour.
However, reading the above article & whatever one might think of the rather controversial Nigel Farage, it would appear that UKIP currently relies too much on him to promote their cause. It also remains a single issue (anti-EU) party, now trying to think of other policies beyond the EU question and to redefine itself as more than a simple depository for protest votes. This does not mean that UKIP should not be taken seriously by the Conservative party. Being rude about UKIP and insulting their intelligence, is no way to win back those natural Conservative party voters who have defected to UKIP.
BCiP Debate: For or Against a Federal Europe?
jeudi, mars 15th, 2012Debate motion: That the European Union should become a fully-fledged federal state.
The debate on 13th March, 2012 within a sub-group of the British Conservatives in Paris (BCiP), seemed to raise more questions than answers on what would actually constitute a federal Europe as far as British participation was concerned. The current model for the European Union (EU) projects itself weakly on the international stage, with limited perception or appreciation of its role and how it operates on the part of the British public in particular. However, is there really a choice for Britain between a federal EU and the US, with the latter indicated as perhaps preferring Britain in the EU rather than out? Is there a common enough culture between different EU member states to compare with other federations such as the US and Germany after 1871? Can the British island mentality, together with a legacy of empire building outside Europe and an increasingly multi-cultural society, allow the UK to remain the European exception? Would a federal Europe still allow opt-outs and e.g. non-membership of a common currency, the Euro-zone already forced further into fiscal consolidation to protect its weaker members?
Proposing the motion for a federal Europe, PT considered this as something big to be addressed for a country such as Britain which, having acted in the past as a beacon to the world, has the benefit of choices in its future path. One such choice is not to rule out Europe and Britain should support the rest of Europe in plans for federation. Despite some 2000 years of historical links with the European continent, there is a general lack of understanding of the role and inner workings of the EU within Britain and a reciprocal distrust of British intentions on the Continent e.g. working against European integration. That said, the Germans welcome the British as balancing French statism, while the smaller states view Britain as off-setting German predominance. Certainly, although fundamentally financially strong, the EU is perceived as politically weak and carries little weight on the international stage e.g. in Middle East negotiations. There is limited understanding of the role and functioning of the European Commission. Again, there is too much centralisation and the various European institutions in general are weak. A federal Europe including the UK would help to make the EU a stronger force in the World. Is this Utopia? Think about German reunification, the fall of the Soviet Union and the Arab spring and then do not discount a federal Europe.
Leading against the motion for a federal Europe, JS was in favor of the EU, but not a federal vision thereof. Although the definition of a federal Europe was not clear, he suggested that it ought to include the following:
1. A common budget/taxation system (Currently not working out)
2. Common currency (Essentially the Euro is the Deutschmark at root).
3. Majority decision making with no opt-outs (i.e. no French veto on the Common Agricultural Policy which consumes one third of the total EU budget; no protection for British financial services)
4. Expanded federal bureaucracy
5. Borderless Schengen zone for all federal states (no special UK controls on immigration)
6. Common defence/foreign policy (despite unlikely European defence force, special UK/US and Germany/China/Russia links)
Given these ingredients, if you are for the EU you should vote against this motion; if you are against the EU, you should also vote against this motion.
Seconding the motion for a federal Europe, SD said the UK was becoming increasingly irrelevant and out of touch in the world of today. To again exert British influence the only way forward is through Europe. The world is already divided between the US and rising major powers such as China, followed by Brazil, India etc. The credit crunch has put Europe in crisis. The Conservatives traditionally favour pragmatism over principle. There is a lack of influence on the international stage of individual European countries. The only one forward for them is via a federal Europe. A federal Europe does not mean an homogeneous Europe. We are talking about pragmatism and progression, not dependence or independence. Rather than waiting, a federal Europe offers the opportunity to catch up on the international stage.
MD, seconding against the motion, thought further integration at this point more problematic than beneficial:
1. The financial crisis had exposed the weaker peripheral member states compared with the stronger core, with subsidies to the periphery continuing while overall debt still increased.
2. On the concept of environmental determinism and in light of the financial crisis, it is useful to consider that the industrial development and spread of wealth in the EU is as it is for a reason, and perhaps should be accepted as such. By contrast, an even more integrated EU may continue to produce a geographical core subsidising the periphery.
3. It would take a cultural revolution for Britain to participate fully in a more integrated federal Europe, and Britain?s further participation would be needed.
Fundamentally, therefore, a federal Europe including the UK is unrealistic at this moment in time.
Comments which were then invited from the floor included those of:
RB ? We share the fact that we are all parliamentary democracies in the EU. However, the dominant political leaning (Left or Right) of the European Parliament has seemingly tracked the political persuasion of the then European Commission President. So yes, a federal Europe is necessary to address this democratic deficit. The environment also needs more central control as does immigration via the Schengen Agreement , or a business person will face the prospect of one Schengen zone visa and still another visa for the UK. We Europeans have more in common than our differences and need a cultural revolution in favour of federation.
PDH ? Britain and Continental Europe have for long enriched each other culturally and economically. To cite just one example, Britain was strongly influenced by the Florentine Renaissance and banking system. The EU has resulted in major benefits in trade in goods and services as well as standardisation across a huge range of activities. Peace in Europe is often claimed as an EU achievement but I would rather attribute it to Nato.
For fear of destroying past achievements, we should not now try to go too far and too fast and political federation would be premature, to say the least. The European ship is anyway grounded on the rocks of fiscal, monetary and political problems. We should certainly not listen to EU officials telling us to wait in our cabins while they decide what’s good for us. Further rapid integration could provoke disastrous reactions. Consider what happened to Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia and what is happening to Belgium. Britain, too, has learned from its unfortunate attempt at unity with Ireland. « Marry at haste and repent at leisure. » De Gaulle’s « Europe des Patries » is the ideal model. The pragmatic Conservative policies on Europe strike the right balance. The UK should have no complexes about its European credentials and is almost second to none in actually implementing what is agreed in Brussels.
The « Europe des Patries » was certainly invented by de Gaulle. I have found no evidence that the Telegraph played any role in developing the concept (in response to related GD comment below).
GD ? JS spoke in defence of the financial sector but this sector was responsible for the financial crisis. Application of a Tobin tax in the EU would be ok if the US takes this on as well, and it needs to do so due to its enormous debt. If the financial sector does not pay to resolve the debt, taxing the general public more heavily will only depress the economies further. On a matter of information, it was the Daily Telegraph (and not de Gaulle) which came up with the slogan Europe des patries! I would ask MD if Britain is core or peripheral to the European economy ?
PL ? We need to be in the EU in order to change it.
MlD ? The US has grown in a federal way but European countries have grown in a different way. Britain is not naturally involved in Europe and has a choice of being involved or not. If the other EU member states want a federal Europe they can go it alone without Britain.
JM ? It is difficult to see how a federal Europe can work without a common fiscal policy given the Greek situation.
JK ? We will continue to lick the boots of the US unless we go with the EU:
1. We paid a high price for US financial assistance after the War compared with Germany.
2. Germany was able to afford to rebuild its industry.
MlD ? We need to get away from this special relationship idea that while the US is always there to save us, it also treats us shabbily.
GD ? The special relationship (and le grand large) was invented by Winston Churchill to ally with the Americans, while at heart he remained a true European.
MD ? I have noted hostility to the British in France over the years, and have lost hope in a European ideal to some degree. It is unrealistic for Britain to try and integrate further in the EU at this stage.
PL ? The splendid isolation idea is not good.
PDH ? It is a pity the debate pitched the UK against (continental) Europe. There are also strong opinions against a federal Europe in Germany and Italy.
Summing up for the opposition to the motion for a federal Europe, JS had heard passion and experience expressed in favour of Europe but there would be a need to be able to opt-out to survive in a federal Europe. He was not arguing for a US-type relationship but for closer economic ties with Europe. A multi-speed Europe is the only answer with no sharing all at once. A common culture must be allowed to grow organically; it is no way to create harmony by tying together the tails of snarling dogs!
PT concluding for a federal Europe, recalled that the Lisbon Treaty already allowed for a multi-speed Europe, EMU and the Schengen Agreement. Explaining how a federal Europe could operate, he suggested that:
1. There would be an elected central executive, headed up by the chief of the European Commission, responsible to the European Parliament.
2. A second chamber would represent the national member states, similar to the current European Council.
3. Common policies would include the armed forces and health.
4. Member states would not be as neutered as those within the American model (the US is nothing like the EU).
There is an interesting parallel with the 1871 uniting of the various Germanic states, which already shared a common culture. Similarly other European states together with the UK could find a common culture to share within a federal Europe.
At the end of the debate a show of hands was called for and the motion for a federal Europe was defeated by 6 votes for and 9 votes against.
British Veto of EU Treaty
mercredi, décembre 14th, 2011At the European summit in Brussels on 8th December, 2011 David Cameron defied all predictions by becoming the first British Prime Minister to veto a European treaty (aimed at stabilizing the Eurozone). This has not only surprised but also pleased his Eurosceptic backbench MPs. In contrast, others of his critics charge that President Sarkozy of France was the real winner in Brussels by forcing the Prime Minister to exercise his veto, thus removing him in one fell swoop as an important rival in influencing the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, leaving the field open for French officials to guide decision making in Europe. President Sarkozy of course has his own critics in France e.g. the Socialist presidential candidate, Francois Hollande, accuses him of yielding too much to Berlin.
One explanation for this turn of events is that Britain has a different view of its national interest from France and Germany, with both these nations seeking ever closer union and there is seemingly nothing to stop them going ahead with this strategy. However, the problem remains that the immediate crisis of the Eurozone has been neglected again, with no plan for the weaker members emerging from the talks. Indeed, the main issue for the Eurozone, and Britain, is not trade imbalances as such which are narrowing for its member states because of depressed activity reducing imports versus exports. More important is the major long term question of whether Eurozone members can overcome the huge loss of competitiveness since the Euro was launched.
Since 2000, while German unit labour costs have risen by less than 5%, over the same period those of France have increased by 25%, Spain by over 30% and Italy almost 40%. According to the OECD, most of these countries will not close this competitive gap in the next two years. Longer term, it is not clear if a process has been established to also allow these countries to successfully grow their economies and prevent government debt from rising inexorably at the same time.
Things do not look so good for the British economy either, with an outright break with the EU leading to the possibility of economic misfortune for both sides. The current crisis impacting the future of the EU is taking place within a tense political environment created by recession and an angry public suffering real hardship across Europe. For Britain the challenge is to re-establish or redefine its relationship with the EU, without damaging its current trading partnership.
British Expat Representation in the European Union.
dimanche, novembre 27th, 2011Brian Cave, the originator of the campaigning group Pensioners Debout! in France, has written a thought provoking article on Why Political Representation is now so important to all ?Expatriate British? citizens now living in Europe, which should also provide interesting reading for eurosceptic Westminster MPs!
(Refer also to Categories/Chairmans Blog/Federal EU?/Tories & Europe in the right-hand index column)
Europe is in a special situation in the World.
Consider your position if the European Union ceased!
But first let us view Europe as part of a changing world. Political structures are changing fast. Much arises from the spirit of the younger generation, gaining power via the ease of social networking. Young professionals of all nationalities are talking to each other. Close bonds between people cross the ancient boundaries.
In Europe not only is this happening, but also the past enmities which tore Europe apart (and which the older generations remember extremely well) have virtually disappeared.
All these changes demand a new order of political structure.
BUT AT THIS TIME the British press and political commentators are pushing an anti-Europe theme.
What then would be your position if the European Union collapsed?
Before 1973*, any Briton living in continental Europe would be an absolute foreigner, totally dependent on the laws of the separate countries of Europe . You could not move freely in Europe from job to job, or live in one country and work in another. You would be unlikely to get a resident permit unless you could prove that you had sufficient funds to support yourself. You would have to provide yourself with full health cover by some means or another. The social security system would have been unlikely to support you. You would have no guarantee of permanent residence. Problems which might arise politically between the State of residence and the UK could force you to leave. Only through the treaties which have created the European Union can you be sure of your right to stay. These treaties are signed on your behalf by the UK . You are, whether you wish it or not, represented by the UK . But you cannot comment on your condition in any official manner without a representative MP in Parliament. The Government dictates to you what you can or cannot do.
The situation for the people who have retired from the UK to the Continent is, in these matters, extreme. Today there are 434,000 such citizens.
Normally all their income stems from the UK .
Many are by law taxed in the UK (ex -Military, Police, Firemen, Teachers, Local Authority staff).
The treaties relating to health cover mean that the costs of health cover (theoretically) are the responsibility of the UK .
They normally have families, grandchildren in the UK about whom they are concerned.
If Europe collapsed then these 434,000 elderly citizens could well be in a mess, with a difficult health care and financial situations.
Even the younger citizens abroad often have parents or siblings in the UK about whom they are concerned.
And above all, is there any citizen (old or young) who retains any attachment to Britain , not concerned about the performance of Britain in World Affairs?
Europe is indeed a very special case in the World. There are Continent wide European treaties which enable citizens to move freely between the States. Younger Britons often do so. The same Europe-wide treaties apply to them as they move. British Citizenship remains a constant in these moves. The British Citizen is an ambassador of British Culture ? however unwittingly. The British Government should recognise this fact. There should be a two-way flow of spirit and information between the British Government and the British Citizen. It sounds so obvious, but it does not exist!
A New Order. In Europe , it would seem desirable ? essential- that a form of communication should exist between the individual citizen, his/her nation, and the European Union by representation. If something goes amiss to whom would he/she seek redress? Fortunately one can go to the European Commission. Nevertheless would it not be welcome if the UK could and would consult those who are directly affected ? the British citizen in Europe ? by parliamentary representation? This could be achieved by an MP directly elected by these citizens. Through such an MP or MPs, the citizen can relate directly to Government and this would change the current attitude of dictate from Government to one of consultation with the Citizen Abroad.
Conclusions. Seek appropriate Representation, eventually by elected MPs. for citizens abroad. A new order of representation will take time to achieve but it will come faster if you make it known that you desire the British Government to take notice of you and your needs by at the first step guaranteeing a vote for life for some form of representation
Send your opinion to Mark Harper, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, House of Commons, London SW1A OAA psmarkharper@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.ukand get others to sign up and comment on http://votes-for-expat-brits.com/
* Notes on demographic changes since 1973. When the UK joined the EU, the number of elderly British citizens on the continent has grown from extremely few ? almost zero in most countries ? to 102,000 in Spain, 55,000 in France, about 38,000 in both Germany and Italy and 9,000 in Portugal The numbers in Cyprus are now growing rapidly and number 17,600, increasing by over 12% in the last year alone. Ireland has 123,000.
The exact figures can be obtained via the Dept. of Works and Pensions tables
Brian Cave,
originator of http://pensionersdebout.blogspot.com/