DESPITE stiff competition from local and mayoral election results involving almost 200 local authorities across England, Wales and Scotland, Peter Mandelson, the former Labour cabinet minister, co-inventor of Blairism and ex-European Union trade commissioner, is set to make headlines this afternoon by calling for Britain to hold an in-out referendum on EU membership.
Voices on the Tory right have already reacted with enthusiasm, with ConservativeHome arguing that David Cameron should follow Lord Mandelson's lead and announce an in-out referendum. Con Home explicitly says that the value of such a vote would be to neutralise the threat from the United Kingdom Independence Party, the anti-EU protest party which is today being credited or blamed (depending on who is doing the reporting) with triggering defeats for the Conservatives in such previous Tory strongholds as Thurrock in Essex and Tunbridge Wells in Kent.
Some caveats are needed at this point. Nobody is expecting UKIP to pick up lots of seats in the House of Commons at the next general election. There is considerable polling and focus group evidence that Europe is not, in fact, the top issue for core UKIP voters, who are more angry and anxious about immigration, globalisation (though this is expressed as anxiety about the economy) and what they see as a collapse in traditional values. But on the Conservative Right, plenty of people will tell you that UKIP is in danger of splitting the right-wing vote, and handing victory to Labour in lots of seats. They see ample evidence for this in the results now flooding in after yesterday's local elections.
Though this is expressed less loudly, the implicit appeal of an in-out referendum to many on the Tory right is also, not to put too fine a point on it, that they want to leave the EU.
Nobody could accuse Lord Mandelson of being motivated by Euroscepticism. In the same Hands Lecture this afternoon he will match his call for an in-out referendum with a plea for Britain to contemplate joining the euro one day, a suggestion that Sir Humphrey would call "brave" and which in part reflects Lord Mandelson's retirement from the messy business of getting elected.
So is he right? His analysis of the democratic deficit is hard to fault. Drawing on new polling by Policy Network, the left of centre think tank of which he is president, Lord Mandelson notes that 56% of respondents want a referendum on British membership. He also notes that the mandate secured by the government of Edward Heath in the only ever British referendum on Europe, in 1975, "belongs to another time and another generation".
He also argues that:
a fresh referendum on this will be necessary because the political parties cannot reconcile their own differences and come to a final conclusion on their own, and nor should they. While the Conservative Party is the home of visceral hostility towards Europe, to an extent, negative feelings about Europe are now more present in all the parties
All that feels like an accurate reading of British politics, and is duly being taken seriously in the press and on the blogosphere.
Before I venture my own opinion on an in-out referendum, I would make the case that, in fact, the most important argument in Lord Mandelson's lecture lies elsewhere. The former EU commissioner spends some considerable time examining the level of integration—whether fiscal, political or otherwise—that is likely to be needed within the euro zone to save the single currency. And he suggests that if such integration does take place within an inner core of 17 countries that use the euro, that Britain will find itself with fewer options than it thinks. In essence, having posed the question: should Britain have a vote about leaving the EU, he poses another: is Europe about to leave Britain? I think he might be right, though I still have a gut instinct that really deep integration in the euro zone is still some way off, for the crude reason that, as this crisis is revealing every day, we Europeans do not like each other enough to set up an American-style system of fiscal transfers.
Lord Mandelson draws a neat historical parallel between Sir Winston Churchill's 1946 speech in Zurich, in which he urged France and Germany to form a United States of Europe while suggesting Britain would remain a friendly onlooker, and the present government's stance of urging euro zone countries to follow the "remorseless logic" of currency union and embrace much closer integration, without involving Britain. Churchill, says Lord Mandelson, was of the last generation of senior British Conservatives to adopt a stance of urging much closer European integration without any desire for Britain to join in... until the present generation of Tory leaders, led by David Cameron and George Osborne.
Here is his take on the overlap between that wary, go-ahead-without-us stance of the Cameron government and the UKIP desire to leave:
We have long tried to believe that the EU would keep getting wider rather than deeper and we would never have to confront our own ambiguous feelings about Union. Events are conspiring to call our bluff.
And for us in Britain this will pose a sharp, for some deeply uncomfortable, choice that we have hoped and sought to avoid. A nation of “reluctant” Europeans will have to confront a choice between taking part in greater integration, including joining the Euro, or an uncertain future.
Having posed the problem thus, I don't think I can really end without some form of conclusion or prescription for Britain. I think my biggest challenge is to the pro-Europeans in the UK. In the version of the future that I have described there are two basic ways of being ‘out' of Europe for this country. There is the argument that just says we should be out altogether. The red tape. The bent bananas. The gravy train. What has become the UKIP view.
Then there is the argument that a looser relationship, a place on the second tier is fine for Britain, not out but not fully in. A Hong Kong to Europe's China. Or a Canada to Europe's United States. The second, I think, is where the current government, or the Conservative part of it, probably would be happy to come down.
My view is that both will probably amount to much the same thing
I think I am coming round to that point of view. I have written several times over the last couple of years that though Britain does not intend walking out of the EU, it could fall out.
I am with Lord Mandelson in thinking that there are grave dangers to walking out. I have written columns and blog postings arguing that in their cost-benefit analysis of EU membership, Eurosceptics routinely get their costs and benefits wrong, both underestimating the present value of the single market and overestimating the ease with which Britain would negotiate a more attractive free trade pact with the rest of Europe.
Where I think I part company with Lord Mandelson is that, crudely, there are things that Europe could turn into that would make me change my mind, and want to leave. There are degrees of integration, involving market-unfriendly corporatism and barriers to competition or claims to have created pan-European democracy via the European Parliament or a directly elected President of Europe, that I think would be intolerable, and also unsustainable (because I think that pan-European democracy is a fantasy).
Where I differ from British Eurosceptics is, crudely, that I think that we are some way away from that point of intolerable integration, and that for now the risks of departure greatly outweigh the advantages.
Lord Mandelson seems to be arguing that the risks of departure will always outweigh any advantages. Here is how he describes Britain's fate if it either walks out of the club, or sits in an inner circle outside a more integrated euro zone:
We will still have to meet EU standards to trade with Europe. We will simply have no or little voice in defining them. We will still seek to align ourselves with Europe internationally most of the time, as a matter of political and practical necessity.But we will have less say in Europe's own policy deliberations. For this reason, both outcomes seem badly flawed to me and should be rejected
He goes on:
Britain's eurosceptics are busy patting themselves on the back for their historical resistance to joining the euro. But it seems to me that assuming that the Eurozone is doomed to perpetual failure is assuming a lot. There is a strong case for a European single currency and in practical respects it has worked well. It is the currency union that is politically and institutionally flawed, the crisis may in fact be the key to its success – by forcing the necessary institutional and political reforms. The economic logic for staying outside the Eurozone can and probably will change. As the euro continues its rise to a global reserve currency. The logic for London and the euro may be the same. Hong Kong's strength is in large part a function of mainland China's weakness, and for all its problems, Europe hardly fits that picture.
Throughout this lecture I have purposefully tried to be as dispassionate as possible but you will have guessed where I stand. I believe in a prospect of euro-membership and closer political union and economic governance. Partly, I recognise, this is an emotional choice – I identify as a European.
But it is also because I believe that – if I can paraphrase Mrs Thatcher – for Britain, the facts of globalised life are European
Which makes his support for an in-out referendum all the braver. Such a vote, he says, "would not be relevant until the new shape of Europe, and the success or otherwise of its Eurozone Mk 2, finally emerges and a considered judgement is possible, something which is likely to be a fair way off".
But he is ready to risk one.
For what it is worth, and with grave misgivings, I suspect he may be right. My misgivings are mostly tied up with the fact that a clean, in-out referendum would be hard to achieve. The central problem with British public opinion and Europe is that, when asked, most people want something that is not on offer. The new Policy Network polling falls squarely into this camp. As the think tank reports:
36% of people think Britain should stay in the EU but only as a member of a free trade area, 18% as we currently are but with no further integration, and 14% of people say the UK should stay in the EU and play a full role in any further integration. A third think Britain should leave
Policy Network writes that up as 67% of voters wanting to stay in the EU, but that is a stretch. I would argue that it really shows two thirds of people either wanting to leave or achieve a pure free trade relationship (which means leaving, in truth), plus another 18% wanting something that is not going to happen, ie, no further integration. That adds up to 87% or so being unhappy with the current arrangements.
So given that I would argue strongly for staying for the moment, why would I want a referendum? Well, the optimist in me thinks that a referendum would force everyone to have a more honest debate, and explain the choices that really are on offer. The pessimist in me thinks that the debate might end up being pretty horrible, but that the status quo is just not very good for British democracy.
As it happens, to end a long posting, I suspect that those wishing for Mr Cameron to include an in-out referendum in the Conservative manifesto at the next general election will be disappointed. Yes, I can see that a continued UKIP surge could put intense pressure on Mr Cameron. Some speculate that Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, could trump the Tories and call for a referendum (though I wonder if Mr Miliband would want to risk such a vote, given his strong pro-European views). But surely the biggest problem for the Tories is that, if they suggested a referendum, they would then have to explain which way they would want the British people to vote.
If Conservative leaders made it plain that they would campaign to stay in (which would tally with everything that the prime minister currently says in defence of the single market), then the UKIP threat would not really be neutralised, would it? The Conservative Party in Parliament would also see some splits.
But if the Tory Party called for a referendum and then said that it would campaign for a vote to leave, that would make the whole election about Europe, bringing out every last voter-frightening obsessive on the pro- and anti-side.
And a fudge, in which party leaders said that Tory MPs would be free to campaign on Europe after the election according to their consciences, would also not really do the trick, either, surely? Because that would not stop people asking Mr Cameron what his own views were in interviews and in the televised leaders' debates during the general election campaign, and that would open up most of the traps and splits described above.
But the issue is not going to go away, and even Euro-pragmatists like me need to acknowledge that. Europe is on the move in unpredictable ways. Britain is not going to be able to stand on the sidelines forever, offering helpful advice.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
The people have been promised a referendum time and time again, it is being confused with the common market, this is what we voted for and this is what we want. If the gov believed a majority wanted to stay in then they would have given us our say. A straightforward in-out say in OUR future
It is clear that David Cameron would like to negotiate a new relationship with Europe - repatriating 'whole swathes of legislation covering social issues, working time and home affairs - before he puts the question.
The difficulty is that, as previous Prime Ministers have discovered, there is no appetite in Europe to negotiate separate arrangements for a single member state, and little likelihood that he will be able to secure new terms to put to the British people.
Furthermore, the pace of events is not directly under his control, and he may be overtaken by his own legislation: unless he continues to veto anything which looks like it might become a treaty change, at some point he will have to put ratification on some relatively obscure treaty change to Parliament. At that point, his backbenchers may be able to force an early referendum.
If, as polls have consistently indicated for some time now, the outcome of almost any referendum on Europe would be a No vote, he will have little choice but to hold a second referendum some six months later, in which the question will be effectively In or Out of the EU as it currently exists.
See www.eurinco.eu/news: should business start to prepare for life after EU membership? Or to make the case for continued EU membership rather more actively?
It's comforting to see Bagehot, one of my favourite Economist bloggers and writers, implicitly stating that the European Union is a political experiment.
In my personal view, the boldest governance experiment ever tried. At the very least, since the creation of the USA.
Obviously, nobody knows how its final shape will be or even if there will be a final shape.
Whatever the moves, counter-moves and sideways steps, it is, in my opinion, of the greatest interest for Britain to be involved in the project.
I fully respect the emotions and even reasons of those who prefer Britain to be out.
Maybe they are right I wrong.
My reasons is that in the future world, small and medium sized political units are bound to lose their identity unless they are protected by much larger units to which they belong.
Unless they have something special they can offer like the Vatican and its spiritual power, Monaco and its protection of the very wealthy, Singapore and her unusual combination of high tech manufacturing and low skills betting finance.
Britain is today a medium sized political unit, risking being even smaller in two years' time that has almost completely lost her innovative edge in industry or trade-able services and suffering from her outsize financial activity (meaning her being a betting shop).
It's doubtful Britain can survive with her identity unscathed for long.
Yet, I repeat, I can be wrong.
What Britain cannot afford to do is to maintain her present hesitating position: Either enthusiastically in or clearly out.
That will be accepted by Britain's friends in EU and elsewhere amicably and understandably.
What will not be accepted is the Humpty Dumptyesque present posture: one day His Eggship will have a great fall and not all FMI men will put her together again.
Sorry to have said this before but with my weak imagination I cannot find another way of expressing my thoughts.
I like the Humpty Dumpty bit, very amusing however, you should look at it from a British perspective which is I agree, largely historical but not wrong for that.
The threat to Britain has always come from the Continent, we have always been "in it" but not "of it". Equally we have always ended up having to get involved to prevent or help end, problems. We are not in the Euro which is being completely destroyed by idiot politicians of the countries that are in it but we are impacted by by their folly.
Britain being in the Euro would solve nothing. The EU is run for the exclusive benefit of France and Germany so that they continue to play nicely together, Britain's role today is exactly what it has always been, to act as a counterweight to those two.
Many years ago when the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland were at their height, I was talking to a trade unionist from the Republic, I asked him whether he thought that the reunification of Ireland would solve it all. His reply was pretty firm in saying that very few people in the South wanted reunification, all they wanted was to see "fair play" in the North. That is likely the view of most Brits towards continental Europe, nice place for a holiday.
to baldy63
Thank you for your kind words.
Being 80, I can divulge that in the mid fifties, when I paid British taxes, I once won an essay prize by looking at the union of Europe from a British (actually Northern English) perspective.
I no longer pay British taxes and always make a strong point of never giving opinions in the political life of a country where I have no right to be represented.
The opinion I have expressed above is as far as I allow myself to go (in fact, a little further than I normally do but old loves and habits are never fully forgotten).
Countries, like individuals, like regions, are not uniform and you'll find outside Britain many diverging opinions about Britain's participation in the EU. As in Britain itself.
So I cannot claim I speak for anyone but knowing many responsible people in many countries(that's the only benefit of age...), my feeling is that the majority of educated continentals would be as friendly of Britain as they are now whether Britain joins more enthusiastically the EU or leaves it altogether.
What the many friends of Britain object to is the indecision. It looks dangerously like having the best of both worlds: if I like it I take it, if not I just go there for the holidays. It makes for a terrible amount of hidden ill feeling.
Either in, fully welcome or out, fully understood too.
Incidentally, nowadays I spend most of my quality time in a small fishing village where I have a house. I would say the number of Britons who live there either as retired people, with much lower costs than in Britain, having jobs there or business people is not far from 5 to 10% of the local population. That does not include Irish who are about as many.
Talk to them and you'll find a different opinion. They go for their holidays in Britain.
But I've gone again a little too far in expressing my preference in a subject whose choice belongs only to fully legal Britons.
If I may repeat myself: please make up your mind quickly. The hesitation is doing a lot of internal harm and, maybe worse, creating some external ill will.
That, Britain can no longer afford.
I respect your views and as I have expressed below, my personal preference would be for us to leave the EU and the ECHR as well. Principally so that we can better control our own politicians and judges who are too wont to offer excuses centred around "their hands being tied because..." I would like to kick that stool from under them when the reality is that they are just being incompetent or lazy.
However, this is not to be because it is not Britain's historical role with regard to mainland Europe, we have always been half in and half out and that wont change ever. The origins of this go back to at least Henry VIII, it was a prerequisite of our national survival to ensure that our interests weren't threatened from Continental Europe and oddly, this has served Continental Europe well over the centuries too.
As for 'resentment' towards Britain because of this, does it matter ? We have always been hailed when British youth and gold have been spent in wars resolving European problems and always condemned when we refuse to go along with foolish fantasies such as the Euro. This won't change either despite the hyperbole of fools like Tony Blair.
In this regard with reference to some in Europe, we Brits will always be seen rather like supporters of Millwall FC who have a chant; "Everybody hates us and we don't care."
There is no more a historical "inevitability" about the EU any more than there was for Communism or the Third Reich, it will pass but the countries of Europe will remain. As the Euro crisis shows only too well, lacking a pan European Demos, it is doomed never to achieve its grandiose illusions in which the smaller countries get crushed by France and Germany "for the greater good".
Although it may be difficult to see, Europe needs a sceptical Britain if only to point out that when it comes to Magic Suits of Clothes, actually the King is naked. I wish you well and you are fully entitled to express your opinion on the UK, you have your views and have voted with your feet, in the Land of Falstaff, robust debate is to be welcomed.
Intersting thoughts, but I'd like to expand on your phrase "The threat to Britain has always come from the Continent".
Let's start with "Britain". Presumably this means the Union of England and Scotland. Because they share a land border. And of course Ireland, or at least part of it. That's because...well because it just is. The Union is only a fairly recent phenomenon. It might stand the test of time. It might not. Same for the EU.
As for England, the threat came from the Continent, because until relatively recently, the rest of the world either hadn't been discovered, or was too far away logistically to pose a threat of invasion. As for today, I don't see any troops from democratic France or Germany massing across the Channel. At the same time, any rogue state anywhere in the world with missile technology could theoretically pose a threat to anywhere else.
The threat didn't only come from the Continent though. Until the Union of Crowns, relations between England and Scotland were far from peaceful. Bannockburn, Flodden Field, Culloden are the stuff of legend. As recently as 1745 a Scots army under Bonnie Prince Charlie advanced as far south as Derby.
"In (Europe) but not of it". Until the 16th century, the King of England controlled half of what is modern France. Not through invasion. It had always belonged to them. The Kingdom of France was much smaller then. The Channel was no more of an obstacle than St. George's Channel. Joan of Arc put paid to a lot of that. Our royal family, though initially Saxon, was later Danish, Norman, Dutch (in 1689) and finally German (in 1714, the King could hardly speak English).
The Tudors knew that England had to be involved in European politics. King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth, despite the Ecclesiastical break with Rome, continued to act as a power broker between the French Kings and the Holy Roman Emperors, who basically ruled what is now Germany. They knew the importance of this, since they were desperate to avoid the two ganging up together against England. On the whole they were very successful.
What they did not do was to turn their back on European politics. The Channel is not very wide, and it could turn out bad for us if we isolated ourselves, as we unfortunately did in the build-up to 1914, whilst we concentrated on building our Empire. Similarly in the 1930s, when we were still so scarred by World War I that we were reluctant to step in earlier to prevent a second one.
For that reason, we, England, Britain, whatever, would be foolish to leave Europe completely. That does not mean we must join the Euro now. We're not the only country that isn't a member, and that system might eventually collapse. But out of the ruins of the Euro, if that is to happen, some new framework will emerge, and we should at least use our influence (because we're still a pretty big fish in the European pond) to get the best deal for ourselves. Because we hadn't been in the old EEC when it was first set up, it's been going in a direction we don't like.
to baldy 63 (repetition for my post history)
It is a very interesting debate we are having here.
If you'd ever fall in the catastrophic temptation of following my post history (you'd be fast asleep in minutes), you'd find that we have two similar opinions:
i) there's no progress without at least two diverging opinions;
ii) Henry VIII may not have been the first but he surely has the reputation for starting the traditional policy of keeping the Continental powers apart to safeguard England's interests (my oldest post on the subject according to Google was published in June last year but the link appears to be corrupted).
As I have the feeling this is our first exchange of opinions, let me say a couple of things about myself:
a) I don't divulge here my official nationality; I've found most people judge the opinions of others not on their value but based on a stereotyped idea of their nationality (you say that because you are Ruritarian; if you were Bordurian you'd have a different opinion).
b) owing to fortunate circumstance I was born into a family with wide international connections that gave me a D. Juan complex about nation: I fall in love any pretty face that comes along and having very often criss-crossed the world (South and Far East apart) I know most of them.
I also have a passion for History and languages that makes me have close friends who don't speak my father's mother's tongue.
And I lived for years in Manchister, Trafford Park and still speak what passes for proper Inglish oop there, luv.
My happiest years in a very happy long life.
This long introduction to say: the decision of being fully in or fully out in the experiment of building a new system of governance in Europe belongs to Britons and nobody else.
As an intellectual contribution to the debate,insisting that I'm not, repeat not, trying to persuade Britons one way or the other I'll add:
The first sea borne European Empire was Portugal. It had its first decadence around 1600. It recovered and became again the wealthiest nation in the world in the 18th century. Portugal was even perceived of being the most advanced technical civilization by then as a rather comical passage I recently posted shows.
She entered almost terminal decadence in the mid 20th Century from which she has never fully recovered.
Yet, I'll never forget that just prior to WW2, Portuguese close friends of my father, all Navy officers, being rather indignant because Portugal was not thought of being a Great Power by the soon enemies to be ...
Loss of Great Power status is one of the longest drawn traumas a nation can suffer; Britain, England particularly, is suffering heavily from it and will be so for generations.
So emotions can overcome reasoning.
Nothing wrong with that: emotions are as important, or even more so, than cold reasoning and it may well be the best long decision for England is to keep out of of any form of European union.
I would however urge you to read Toynbee. He suggests new civilizations are born when old ones become obsolete but the new ones are not successful unless they fight against strong initial difficulties and even failures.
It is also a well known historical fact that minority cultures, as Britain, France, Spain, Sweden, Germany, whatever, are today in the wide, wide world, will only survive if they are integrated in larger political units.
Want another comical example? Apparently the least spoken official language in the world is Mirandese. It is spoken by some 20 thousand bilinguals and ...800 monolinguals.
They joined the larger kingdom some 800 years ago and they have today speeches made in their language in the European Parliament to the great embarrassment of translators.
Their habits and culture (that include a dance very similar to Morris dancing) have been fully preserved ever since they joined the larger political unit.
Can you say the same of other Celtic languages in Britain, Ireland or France that are only recently being revived?
Well, summing up: there are lots of arguments for Britons to join a European union; there are lots, perhaps even more, in favour of staying out.
There isn't a single argument in favour of procrastinating.
Among my many bits of ignorance is football so I've no idea of the club you mention.
But judging by their chant are they well integrated members of society?
I was already born when Nazis, Franco-ists in Spain and Communists almost everywhere had similar chants.
None progressed very far in History, I'm afraid.
Although for the short historical time they survived, they did a lot of disproportionate damage to their size.
Yes and all very interesting but you might note that in what I have written, whilst expressing my personal preference that we should leave both the EU and the jurisdiction of the ECHR in order to improve the accountability of British domestic politics, it is not my view that we ignore Continental Europe. I am not of the view; "Fog over Channel Europe cut off..."
The EU is a crock of pooh but, of historical necessity we will have to continue our half hearted membership to ensure that an equilibrium is maintained there. One of the best and amusing expositions of this was an early episode of Yes Minister where Sir Humphrey explains to Hacker our involvement. What makes the sketch so funny is its "truth".
One should never rule out military threats just because they are not currently apparent, history will always prove you wrong. However, what is at stake is 'British Interests' and the terms of trade are key in that for the well being of our citizens, warfare is, for now, a secondary consideration.
Although skating through British, mainly English history is fine, I suspect that for practical purposes from a British and European perspective, the period from Henry VII onwards represents a view of Europe that is still recognisable in most respects to all Europeans to this day where perhaps the most significant border changes were the unification of Italy and Germany.
And what it also shows is the folly of isolationism. The outside world can come back to bite you, as the USA learned to its cost in 1941. This idea of a United States of Europe. I can see where it originally came from. If you're going to have a functioning economic union, there has to be some form of political union too, again looking at the success of the USA.
It's a good technocratic argument, but unrealistic. Not just from a British point of view. European history shows that this has never happened since the Roman Empire, and that had to be held together by force. I doubt whether the man, or woman, in the street, in any European country, not just the UK, can be persuaded to accept that.
On the other hand, it would be wrong to dismiss the EU as totally malign. When the former Communist countries of Eatern Europe broke free of the iron curtain around 1989, a good number of them joined the EU. All of these have remained democratic since then, none of them have lapsed back into Communism, and it's unlikely that they will.
Contrast that with the former Yugoslavian states, outside the EU. Even NATO could not prevent the Balkan wars of the 1990s, nor indeed the recent spats between Russia and Georgia.
So maybe we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I respect your views but, we must agree to differ. The British view is not predicated as you suggest by "Past Glories and Empire", a quite short lived period in our history, we do not hanker for the past, but awareness of the past informs our today.
The EU suffers from one main problem, it has been far too hurried in what it has attempted to do with regard to the nation states that make up its membership. This foolish haste has been driven by the vainglorious egos of politicians each wanting there to be a statue erected in their home town emblazoned with "The Father of Europe", like some modern day Charlemagne. What nonsense and where are they now, are their names even remembered ?
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.[
Europe is old, if these national borders were ever to have dissolved naturally then surely they would have done so after the end of WW1 the watershed event of the 20th century ? But no, and here we are today with the Leaders of the Euro countries caught in an "orthodoxy of thinking" no different to WWI Generals constantly feeding their troops over the top into a hail of machine gun fire.
In "defence of the Euro" they are sacrificing whole economies, reducing their citizens to despair through their stubborn refusal to think differently. The currency should have been split in two 18 months to 2 years ago with Germany and others leaving the Euro to form a new D Mark zone and letting the Euro devalue to a natural level. But such a tactical withdrawal, such a taking of breath was beyond their wit and intellect to imagine so all must be condemned in the bonfire of their vanities.
So my friend, your new bright shiny Europe is nothing but the same old tawdry whore of yesteryears, nothing has changed, nothing has been learned and lo, we even see the rise of both the extreme Right and Left again, those same Vultures last seen in force during the 1930s. What will we then see once the European economy lies in tatters because of political fools now in power ?
Sit at your seaside cafe, warm your bones, be at peace and be content that however incomprehensible to you, a totally sceptical Britain is a major asset to Europe. We do not seek to strut upon this stage but we will influence it beneficially for all, in the end.
I don't disagree, my preferences would be to be shot of it all but that is unrealistic, we have to stay involved for our own self interest, a peaceful prosperous Europe is what we in Britain always want.
I don't see the EU as 'malign', it is institutionally incompetent and self seeking administratively but in that respect it merely reflects its constituent parts and bureaucratic French origins. However, neither is it the reason for peace in Europe, that was down to NATO and the Cold War that kept the focus in one direction.
So we are condemned to soldier on with it for now but I doubt that it will last as it is and a wary eye will always have to be kept upon it as the mess they made with the Euro demonstrates.
"However, neither is it the reason for peace in Europe". Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, NATO didn't prevent the Balkan wars, though it did play a role in bringing them to an end.
We shouldn't forget what the EEC's originators, notably Schuman in the 1950s, were trying to prevent, namely, another major conflict between the principal European powers. You might argue that NATO has prevented that, though I've a feeling France has left that organisation, or did at one point.
I don't, however, believe that NATO can take credit for the establishment of enduring democracy in Eastern Europe. With the borders, in some cases, not long established, and no real history of accountability, there was every chance that these fledgling democracies could fail, as happened during the inter-war period, or that minor border disputes could flare up, as happened quite a few times in the 1920s and 30s. I have mentioned the former Yugoslavia. Tito was the glue that held that together, and his demise led to a bloody conflict. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus are not in the EU, and their democratic credentials are rather dubious. I don't think it's just a coincidence that relatively new EU entrants such as Romania have not gone backwards with them.
to baldy 63
who wrote
...we must agree to differ
Definitely.
Particularly when you write:
Sit at your seaside cafe, warm your bones, be at peace and be content that however incomprehensible to you, a totally sceptical Britain is a major asset to Europe. We do not seek to strut upon this stage but we will influence it beneficially for all, in the end.
I don't sit at a seaside cafe (I still prefer to sail), I don't warm my bones (the place is rather misty and waters colder than in Bournemouth) and there is very little, if anything, about Britain that is incomprehensible to me.
Britain is definitely an asset to any group she belongs to but I have never seen anyone being totally sceptical influencing beneficially anybody, even less all of them.
And why is it that English Eurosceptics - who have every right to be so, and who knows? may even be right - become so touchy when their views are not accepted in full reverence?
Some sort of inner dissatisfaction?
Good for you but in your own words lie the probable answer: "...but I have never seen anyone being totally sceptical influencing beneficially anybody, even less all of them." The answer lies in "all of them" because, "Who are they at any moment in time ?"
As to the extreme "Euro sceptics" they are no different to the totally "Pro EU Lovers", both fools seeking some totally unattainable Nivarna that reflects personal failures in their own lives. Stupid fools both because the 'ideal' is only for those who wish to 'sacrifice themselves' because, they know their lives otherwise have little value or meaning.
Politics is the art of the 'possible' and right now between France and Germany, that 'possible' excludes any reality with regard to the Euro which to all others, has long since become a busted flush. Do not be fooled, the only reason the Eurozone still exists is so that Pension Funds and Banks can get their money out under best terms.
As to your "I have never seen anyone being totally sceptical influencing beneficially anybody..." At 80 years of age you have seen a number of Popes come and go, each has had a 'Devils Advocate'... go figure old man because herein lies the clue: "The King is in the all-together and as naked as the day that he was born..."
The EU has a demographic deficit of huge proportions, the 'illegal immigrants' are but today's 'slaves' of Ancient Rome and Greece, the unproductive birth controlled indigenous Europeans, a race being replaced or 'replenished' by inward immigration. From this what ?
The EU becomes a 'set of rules' to ensure that our children and grandchildren are treated 'properly' in their old age by a future population of a very different ethnic/cultural origin ?
I suspect that the Europe you think of, has already passed.
Be Lucky Old Man, in age I am not that far behind you but I have no shame of our British reluctance or indifference, in that lives my British - Anglo/Irish blood in which I rejoice as my heritage from these Misty Isles.
An interesting article but in a sense the reality despite those of an "Anti-EU" perspective is that there will not be a "IN/OUT" Referendum and likely, there is no need for one either because the EU as we currently know it, is unlikely to survive it's Nemesis in the Euro.
To be fair, it doesn't deserve to either, the idea behind the Euro of "build it and they will come..." was totally daft. The only reason it lasted as long as it has was that the "Crisis" didn't happen until 2008, if that had started in 2003 so too would the Euro problems, the currency just wasn't built properly in the first place. It could have been saved if the Northern Europeans had left it to form a new D Mark zone which could have been reconnected some years down the line with a vastly devalued Euro.
None of this will happen because the various EU Leaders and in particular Merkel and Sarkozy, lacked the wit and vision plus, neither could deliver their own electorates and that was the deal breaker. You cannot talk about pan European stuff which means losing whatever sovereignty you are left with over your own economy, taxes and so on unless the "people are with you". The whole concept of a United States of Europe was always a vacuous idea but worse still in various forms has been tried and failed IN EUROPE, previously. A triumph of optimism over experience if ever there was.
Ultimately and despite the people in Brussels not wishing it, the EU will diminish in significance, the Euro project was their "Bridge too far". The Euro mess in its own way illustrates just why the 'ever closer' EU is destined to fail, the people aren't ready to surrender that amount of sovereignty, there is no European Demos therefore, a free trade area is the best that it can be and in the face of global competition, the much beloved Brussels Red Tape on things like working time directives will have to be dissolved and will be over the coming years.
Personally I would love the UK to leave both the EU and the ECHR but for only one reason: So that we can point the feet of our politicians and judges towards the fire when they mess up. I am sick and tired with excuses why in this country obvious things aren't done properly : "It was their fault, the playground bullies, the EU, ECHR says..."
It is not just UK politicians who do this, most EU politicians do the same and what it does is undermine national democracy. If you don't have a vibrant national democracy, then you will not develop a pan national one as the European Parliament demonstrates, a talking shop for overpaid fools,
No, if we elect you to do our bidding, you take responsibility etc. David Cameron doesn't have to call a Referendum on our membership on the EU because the EU is hell bent on crippling itself, Sarkozy is gone, Merkel will surely follow, Britain no longer stands alone, EU sceptics abound in mainland Europe, it is the EU that will have to bend not the Nation States or their citizens.
A good comment but I don't think the EU can collapse without anybody leaving it. It isn't a building but rather an international organisation constituted in international law by treaty. Therefore it cannot 'collpase' except by members exiting which means one state after another (starting with the UK) withdrawing from the EU treaties. Therefore withdrawal is absolutely mandatory. Cameron and the Conservative party must learn (it seems 4 elections without winning a majority have not taught them yet) that they will never win a majority again unless they include a manifesto commitment we can believe in that they will leave the EU. It would be a massive mistake to passively assume this will happen unless people vote UKIP an send an unamigous signal as to why the Conservtives keep losing elections.
Whilst I have some sympathy for your views, I do not agree in practical terms. I do not think that the EU will collapse, rather more that it will gradually fade away and become increasingly 'optional' in many areas. Also I do not have the view that UKIP has anything to offer on this and voting for them is a pretty pointless exercise that merely weakens the Tories. They cannot deliver any benefit for the Country and indeed their avowed objective in leaving the EU, UKIP is on a road to nowhere. Allow me to explain:
The reason Mandy wants a IN/OUT Referendum is pure 'Brussels Speak' in the sense that they would correctly calculate that confronted with the choice, the British electorate could be intimidated into staying IN by tales of what the UK may lose economically. It is a proven tactic that has worked well for Brussels over the past decade in various situations and they would be right to deploy it again in the current economic climate.
If you want the British public to vote OUT in a referendum on membership, there first has to be a specific problem that the public can associate with EU membership, immigration, cost, un British impositions... It is this that is lacking in the public's mind and without an identifiable focus that insults national pride, you cannot deliver the required majority at the polls. Worse than that, press the point too early and the chance for a second try will be pushed ahead by several decades.
Also 'studied inaction' is not being passive or complacent on the issue, why fight a battle which others are content to do for you when your only interest is winning the war ? Between them the French and the Germans have made a complete Horlicks of the Euro, they could hardly have done a better job if they set out to totally destroy it. Two to three years ago, the problem was soluble, today it is a forest fire that is out of control.
Cameron's aim on taking office was to kick this into the long grass until after 2015. It was not UKIP that made him say NON ! It was the French and the Germans. We are going full circle here, remember the "EU Constitution" ? It was the French and the Dutch who sunk that and between the collapse of the Dutch Government and the French voting in Hollande it seems that it is Déjà vu - again :)
OK one last constitutional point on referenda. In 1972 Parliament voted to join the European Communities, as they were, which had 9 members. This was subsequently ratified by a two thirds majority in a referendum in 1975. So now we're in a European Union with 27 members. If the argument is that the present generation hasn't had a chance to vote on this, do we keep holding one every 30 years or so? If the argument is that it has changed since then, due to the Single European Act (approved by Mrs. T.) and Maastricht, shouldn't there have been a referendum before those alterations were allowed to happen, not after it has changed in a way we can't reverse?
And finally; suppose there were a referendum, and the British population voted to come out, so we left. Then a few years later, under a different party in Government, it was decided that the country had suffered as a result of coming out, and we'd have been better off staying in (who knows?), then what? Do we have yet another referendum to see if we can rejoin? Is there ever a final answer on this subject?
Both lied to the public to get the 'yes' vote, that much has been uncovered and made public. Given the lies (and the propaganda paid for by the commission) the vote can be held as void.
Whereas the tabloid press wouldn't dream of trying to mislead the voting public in any future referendum on this or any other topic.
"He also notes that the mandate secured by the government of Edward Heath in the only ever British referendum on Europe, in 1975, "belongs to another time and another generation".
Of course Mr Heath, who took the UK into the EEC, as it then was, hated and resisted a referendum. The 1975 referendum was instituted by Harold Wilson after a token "renegotiation", when the Labour Party was divided in quite a similar way tot he current Tory Party. If that precedent from another time is anything to go by, the prospect of a referendum will not be so dangerous to Mr Cameron as the article suggests.
Ted Heath, for all his faults, and Harold Macmillan before him, had the foresight to see that the days of Empire were over, weren't coming back, Britain wasn't going to be the world power it used to be in the future, and it made sense to join a trading bloc with our near neighbours.
The problem, if there was one, was that the European Communities had been formed a couple of decades before we joined, and because we had sat on the sidelines when they were formed, we'd had no influence in the shape they took. There may not have been this perceived Franco-German axis controlling it had we been involved from the start. After all, they'd fought each other 3 times in 80 years. They wished to prevent a repeat.
I'm sure that's right. I understand that Germany would have been a ready ally for a more liberal open-market approach in those early years - but they had to deal with France. We are now making exactly the same mistake with the Euro - though It's too late to do anything about that.
But it is not a trading bloc, its sole purpose is to become a single entity. That was clear then and both Heath and Macmillan lied about it.
If Heath had the balls Thatcher had in taking on the petty Unions, the economy would never have gotten so bad. As is, we would have been better off out. It was the vanity of the likes of Heath and Macmillan that have us landed this country in the crap, chained to a corpse.
Britain would have a lot more influence in Europe if we didn't take such a detached view all the time. The world's a bit different to what it was in 1945, and Churchill's speech was of a different era. We still had an Empire, whilst France and Germany were largely broken by 6 years of conflict. The European Communities, as they were, had been established to try to link neighbouring countries economically, rather than compete against each other, as happened in the years before 1914 and 1939. Co-operation often means compromise, but history records that petty nationalism often leads to more serious outcomes.
The EU now has 27 members, with others wishing to join, but realistically perhaps only 4 are economic powerhouses.
Britain needn't be the odd one out. It's apparent that new President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel aren't likely to see eye to eye on everything. It's not simply a case of either staying in the EU as it now is, or leaving completely. We're not the only country whose population isn't happy with the current set up. So why not use our influence to reform it in a way that suits us? If our leaders walk out of summit meetings, taking our bat home so to speak, what have we actually achieved in diplomatic terms? What positive contribution have we made? How can that gain us respect?
This is an old canard from the weak canon of half-baked arguments of British EU supporters. It is at heart an appeal to a national conceit that we could run the EU ‘if only’ we were more committed to it. Except of course that we couldn’t, not least because it is not on offer. The line is essentially a hookline to lure gullible Old Imperialist / Big Englander types into what is on offer; a followership role.
Tony Blair tried and failed with exactly the approach you advocate soon learning from Jacques Chirac & Gerhard Schroeder, that only an ‘isosceles triangle’ (to use Chirac’s phrase) was on offer with France & Germany being the two equal sides and Blair only free to agree with the pre-cooked Franco-German agreements. I think even Blair gave this up after a handful of meetings.
Great Britain left the continent behind a long time ago, the likes of yourself should quit trying to undo history.
There is nothing on offer that is of benefit to Great Britain, and we would be far better off going our own way and leaving the continentals to it.
Too true. Here's an example of how we left the continent behind. In 2003 the French and German leaders refused to take part in the invasion of Iraq, stating that they did not believe there were weapons if mass destruction. And of course got slated by the patriotic British tabloid press as lily-livered cowards. Meanwhile, loyal Britain valiently followed our beloved Uncle Sam in removing and destroying those weapons, which we knew were there really. Anyone remember how many they have found so far? How many lives were lost in the process?
Sorry, I'm undoing history again. Must stop it.
And so it shows that our interests lay beyond the continent. You forgot to mention that Australia and others joined the expedition.
When you have finished gazing at your belly, you may actual notice that the UK has far wider interests.
Of course, an in-out referendum is a condition for Britain to join the EUROZONE after the next Elections, something I don´t have any doubt will take place. For many reasons, the last one because Spain has accepted to lose its permanent seat in the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB), and that only can be if the U.K. is going to use it.
The European Central Bank (ECB) is an increasingly essential institution in the World, and there is not a British reprsentative in its management (Executive Board) even if the U.K. has the opportunity to have a place on board. And the u.S. has told Britain that if they are OUT they will change their "special relationship" from the U.K. to Germany.
Britain could continue as a military base for the U.S. with permanent submission, a vassail-state without voice...but if Americans want to know what is going on in Europe, what is taking place, what should be done, and what will be done, Britain doesn´t have any influence because they are out. To have any clue about what is going on in Europe, Americans will just head to BERLIN.
We all know what starts at Calais. So, maybe the UK needs a bigger moat!
Why not join NAFTA -- and bring the old Empire with you? (Imperial Preference meets North America!)
NAFTA is about money. Just money. No one wants to unite Canada, Mexico and the USA into a single entity. Each country keeps its own culture, language, foreign policy, currency and political system.You keep the Royal Family, we keep Obama -- although we'd be willing to consider a swap.
If the U.K. did join NAFTA it might be a natural bridge between the EEC and North America.
You can put up with the French and Germans thirty miles away or with the Americans 3000 miles away. Aren't we the better bet? when is the last time we bombed you or tried to make you speak a language that causes one's nose to tickle?
Thank about it!
"NORTH AMERICAN Free Trade Association"? It's going to have to be a pretty big bridge, or else need a considerable seismic shift, for Britain to be geographically eligible to join this. Unless of course we sign up to the US consitution as the 51st state. "Airstrip One".
That line is so old it belongs in a museum.
The old ones are the best.
And is no less a joke.
Esp, since the others don't really care about British advice.
UKIP involvement isn't invariably bad for the Conservatives.
Our own ward in the recent council elections was a straight fight between UKIP and the Conservatives. The Conservatives still won but the Lib Dems who had been the main opposition last time round were virtually wiped out.
In the ward next door, UKIP did not compete and the Lib Dems won easily. Last time when UKIP competed there, it split the anti Tory vote and the Conservatives won easily.
Perhaps the new French president will give the answers to the rest of Europe.
Perhaps his new political line can make many actual problems obsolete.
The rating-agencies will make up their own opinion about the new kind of Europe with a French leadership under the rule of M. Hollande.:)
And there is still a big problem in Greece, Spain and Italy.
The monetary markets will make their choice and then we can see perhaps how quickly many actual problems in regard of the EU and the EURO get solved almost by themselves.
It does not look that Europe is moving closer.
It might conceivably be the case that leaving the EU would be economically beneficial to the UK. But The Economist should realise that principled Eurosceptics are prepared to pay an economic price for the chance of freedom, for the restoration of our self-governing status as a free nation.
I think the British mainstream tendency to phrase everything in economic terms is profoundly misleading. Europe has never been primarily an economic issue, neither for proponents nor for opponents.
It might also be catastrophic. Since no country has ever left the EU, the outcome of withdrawal is hard to predict, after 40 years as a member. The UK is not Norway, which has a small population and vast oil reserves, nor is it Switzerland, whose political neutrality has made it a safe haven for financial deposits. A more pertinent example of a proud independent Atlantic island nation outside the EU is Iceland, and that went bust recently, if I recall correctly
Funny though how going bust is usually a *good* thing for the country concerned!
The pure trade relationship as bagehot implies is pure fantasy and of course this would become apparent in any referendum campaign. The problem with a referendum is that it has the potential to wreck the tory party as the the corn laws did in the 1840's. Really outside of the media, which has largely lost it senses, is it possible to conceive of the great British establishment including the leaderships of the conservative and labor parties coming out against membership. These guys unlike the hoi polloi have seen the numbers and understand them. The issue just doesn't present the same threat to the cohesion of Labor. Sure there are a few on the fringe who would turn ugly but it's not going to split the party. The situation with conservatives is totally different where they have well over 100 MP's who are hard Eurosceptic or at least fellow travellers.
You will find that the issue would just as likely send a split in the Labour party, as the likes of Jack Straw and other leading members have push for alternatives including Great Britain leaving the €U.
Countries from Mexico to Isreal to South Korea have negiotated free trade agreements with the EU and others from Canada to India and Japan are in the process. It is pure head-in-the-denial of reality to suggest that the UK could not do likewise. The Uk is indeed in a stronger negotiating position than any of the countries which have agreed FTAs with the EU/when's thanks to the trade deficit Britain runs with large continental countries who would be cutting their own throats if they were to introduce barriers to trade with the UK that is very profitable to them.
That British EU supporters have to restort to scare-mongering shows that paucity of their arguments for the wealth-destroying and democracy-destroying institutional monstrosity in Brussels.
A Free Trade Agreement allows that some blockages to trade are relaxed or withdrawn - but not all. EU members joined the EU in the knowledge that they would be negotiating a union in common and would share in all the benefits arising (and, Yes, there are problems too).
The EU offers EFTA countries and Switzerland a fairly "soft" relationship - they are part of geographical area of Europe and could, one day, wish to join the EU. It is difficult to see why they should wish to offer an ex-member similarly "soft" terms. NB as I've noted elsewhere, these "soft" terms still require EFTA members and Switzerland to hand over substantial law-making powers to the EU.
At yet if the €U is as rich and powerful as you say it is, why has has it put out the begging bowl?
The €U is corrupt, malicious, and self serving of its own elites who have their heads in the sand.
Soft power comes with influence and credibility, something that the UK has a lot more of than the continent as a whole.
The last time the people had any democratic say on membership of the EU was way back in 1970's. A long over due referendum is badly needed. Politicians both Labour and Tory have been dodging this question for decades, and this is the reason why people have grown tired and impatient and turned to UKIP to force the issue, and let there democratic voices be heard at long last.
Question is will it just turn into a Ireland type referendum fudge, vote NO and the UK still stay's in the EU?
What do you think membership of the EU is, something you revote on every ten years? The decision was taken in the seventies and now the UK economy and indeed wider society is completely enmeshed in the Union with about 45% of British exports going there compared with barely 20% to the entire Anglophone world. A purely trade relationship isn't, as Bagehot points out, on offer and withdrawal would be an economic catastrophe not to mention making the UK even more a political dependancy of the US.
British trade with the €U accounts for less than 40% of all trade, the majority of that goes to the Republic of Ireland and is also governed by a separate treaty.
Many parts of the continent would be greatly hurt by a refusal to offer Great Britain a free trade agreement, as Britain has a huge trade deficit with the rest of the €U in general.
The EU has 60M customers, the UK about 60k. Who would lose out most?
The vast majority of those companies having on the continent. The average British citizen is wealthier per capita than the average for the €Uro fail.
Shut off from a fairly wealthy consumer market that would be open to rivals of Germany and others would be quite lethal to continental industry, and agriculture. When one also considers that British fisheries would be closed to €U members, which many French and Spaniards rely on, the situation falls very much in favour of the UK.
Are you sure about that? The Republic of Ireland, population less than 5 million, is the UK's biggest trading partner? Where did you get that statistic from? According to Economy Watch 2010, our largest export market was the USA, followed by Germany (11%) and France (8%). In terms of imports, Germany (13%) and France (7%) were well ahead of the Irish Republic (4%).
One thing about Eurosceptics, whilst they hate continental Europe, they still seem to love the Irish, struggling almost to accept the fact that Eire became independent around 90 years ago, is a member of the Euro, and has fully adopted the metric system. Rule Britannia.
The British want free trade. So they say they want to sail away from the EU, this awful "corpse" that is actually the largest free trade area in the world. I think I will never understand this paradox. Probably because I am a poor stuborn, burocratic and sclerotic continental. Can anybody from the free world enlight me?
The EU is not a free trade area. There is a customs union but also the desire to transfer ever more powers from our elected governments to Brussels' political union and that is totally unacceptable. But even the customs union is too restrictive prohibiting as it does British membership of other FTA's. North America has NAFTA yet Mexico (and soon Canada) are still free to sign their own FTAs with The Eu/EEA which results in more free trade for them than would be possible if NAFTA were a customs union. The UK would for example have more free trade if it were to join both NAFTA and EFTA. Rennie pretends this is 'not on offer' but he is really just trying to close down discussion of better alternatives to the status quo. He says this is 'not on offer' but it is actually his preference of a limit to political integration that is not on offer. Brussels wil always want more power and budget and the only way to prevent it is to leave at which point Continental countries will recognise that free trade with the a post EU United Kingdom is in their self-interest as well as Britain's..
FBJ The EU is not a customs union: it is a Single Market. This was established by the Maastricht Treaty, which requires the "four basic freedoms" - free movement of goods, services, capital and people.
For info, the EU has recently concluded a customs union with the USA, which recognises named 'trusted customers' in each.
Norway has carried out a review of its EFTA relationship with the EU and has concluded that a massive percentage of its laws are "made in the EU" (ie Norway has no say in their development but has to apply them, in accordance with the EU/EFTA agreement.
It is said to be impossible for a nation to leave the EU, which I find debatable, at the least. However, I do recall that every Prime Minister of the UK in the last 40 years plus (including, especially, Mrs Thatcher) has supported the continuation of the UK's membership.
Total junk, which is a good example of how little eu supporters know of what they advocate. You should be embarrassed to post junk like that. There is no USA-EU customs union or even free free trade agreement.
Norway is an EEA member so subject to a limited subset EU regulations in single market (which is a customs union) but not subject to EU law in the more political salient policy areas where recent treaties have given the undemocratic political institutions power to make the law in britain. Some pro-EU Norwegian politicians may characterise EEA membership the way you do, but the real question for then should be why the got some a bad deal compared to Switzerland which refused to join the EEA and has a better deal as a member of EFTA. Comparing British exports to Switzerland (£4.6bn in 2010) to those of a similar country such as Austria (British exports = £1.87bn in 2010) shows that EU membership has little if anything to contribute to trade.
FBJ On 04/05/2012 the EU and the US entered into a customs agreement (OK, not a union). This allows that the EU and the US recognise each other's "trusted traders". There are currently over 5,000 such in the EU. Amongst the several benefits on offer are simplified customs procedures (eg fewer inspections of goods) and, thus, lower costs.
I mentioned Norway specifically because (a) many eurosceptics have claimed Norway as a possible model for future UK relationships with the EU; (b) because I am aware of an official, recent, in-depth review of their relationship with the EU. This available on line. I believe Switzerland has undertaken a similar review but cannot find references to it.
On 07/01/2010 the Norwegian Government set up a cross-party Committee to review the consequences of the EEA and Norway' other agreements with the EU. The Committee reported on 17/01/2012 (Official Norway Reports NOU 2012:2). On domestic policy consequences they find that EU law has been incorporated in 170 out of 600 Norwegian Statutes and approximately 1000 Norwegian Regulations. Overall, in 20 years, Norway has incorporated approximately 75% of all EU legislative acts into Norwegian legislation. (And has implemented them more effectively than many EU states, they claim).
These have implications (they report) "for most sectors of society: the economy, business, the labour market and working conditions, welfare, health, regional policy energy, environment climate change, transport, research, education, food, agriculture, fisheries, alcohol policy, civil emergency preparedness, border controls, immigration, police cooperation , security and defence policy, and much more".
The Committee was not asked to ;make any recommendations, nor did they.
Not "total junk" - facts.
I would much rather follow the Swiss model of bilateral trade agreements within the overarching rubric of the WTO, rather than the Norwegian EFTA/EEA model.
Total junk as to its relevance. Norway is not part of larger international bodies to the same scale as Great Britain, nor does it carry as much clout in as many international bodies.
Britain could make life very difficult for the €U if it tried the same bullying tactics it tries on Norway and Switzerland.
Total junk. A customs agreement is as far from being a customs union as is a customs declaration form.
I understand the need for 'intelligent' debate about Europe, most British people seem to act as if UKIP hasn't twisted EU data, that the red tops and the Daily Mail are entirely neutral, centred papers and that all this information scares them into believing such things as a looming 'abolition of the UK'.
Please do calm down. The UK merely sits in the most, let's say 'inefficient' position in regards to Europe. The lack of cooperation in EU treaties and policy making have made the public suspicious of the EU, which is fuelled, as normal, by our lively national press, exacerbating this suspicion, and often turning it into fear. Because politicians don't want to anger these people, by telling them to actually 'get real' and look at the problem for themselves, they turn all silly and just let this happen. They let people get scared by the EU. This means that more cooperation would be seen as some sort of surrender, and increasingly this seems to mean an end to the UK.
The fear of doing this means that the politicians have created a very useless compromise on EU policy, where we do nothing about it. We've distanced ourselves too far away to help in EU treaties or policies. Yet, despite the possibilities given to us by globalisation, we have let our economy be so tied to Europe's that we are scared to leave. We wouldn't necessarily have to abide by EU standards, though. Globalisation means geography is becoming increasingly irrelevant for international trade. So maybe there is some substance to UKIP's desire for a Commonwealth Free Trade Area? There's plenty of opportunity, and maybe an alternative. Though I am not well read on what this would entail, so perhaps it is fairly impossible. But still, David Cameron vetoing the EU referendum bill was stupid, and then saying 'I think British people still want us in'. No, Cameron, clearly the fact that we the public asked for one would hint that debate is needed!
Politicians need to stop shying away, otherwise we're taking a shot in the foot for every meeting the EU17 holds, a shot in the leg for every new policy they make and a shot in the face each time they integrate further at this rate.
Actually, the case has already been put forward: "In November of 2005, at the Commonwealth Business Summit in Malta, the final communique stated that countries should consider ‘the possibility of establishing a Commonwealth preferential, or free trade area’ should the WTO’s Doha Round prove fruitless. Four years on, the success of that round has been as elusive as the action to make good on that statement... If an agreement were achieved and it could bring per capita incomes up to a level comparable with the developed world, the Commonwealth would have an economy valued at over US$45 trillion - the equivalent of adding the combined GDP’s of the European Union with that of NAFTA - then doubling it."
The information for such a case was compiled by Brent Cameron, a former assistant to a member of the legislature in the Canadian province of Ontario. He is the author of ‘The Case for Commonwealth Free Trade’, published in 2005
referendum
Before or after the Scottish one?
Could ir affect the result?
It should be well-known that people will say what they think a pollster wants to hear - ;then will vote the way they actually feel. Any politically-connected vote is emotionally driven.
lao shi's death-penalty example shows this.
As Bagehot notes, outside the EU, the UK would still have to comply with EU regulations, yet be unable to influence them. This is becoming even more important now that regulation of financial institutions is on the table.
The Euro is let down by the lack of proper political and economic underpinning. The most severe Eurozone problems have come about via the interaction between bank and public-sector debt in individual nations: they are not of EU origin. ie countries and their citizens got themselves into crisis; the EU 'club' is trying to help fellow club-members get themselves out of it. Given that the UK carries 60 - 80% of all EU financial transactions, there is surely a need to be involved in the debate about the future shape of the Eurozone management?
The UK government appears (from this side of the Channel) to be involved.
You are wrong. Outside the EU Britons want not have to obey EU law. The only regulations that would apply would be product-related regulations on the 10% of economic output that is exported to Continental countries. The entire body of law that applies to UK citizens and the product regulation for the 80% of economic coutput consumed domestically would once again be decided by the Westminstet parliament.
The Fascist €U would have no say on financial regulation in Great Britain, and Great Britain pulling out of the €U would boost the City. There would be no possibility of a Financial transaction tax being imposed from Brussels, no way for €U commissars to impose anything in Great Britain.
What the continent is facing is purely down to the corrupt practices of the continent and €U commissars. A failure to publish correct accounts and a culture of looking the other way to 'protect the project'. It is totally naive, irrational and illogical to consider any differently, as the facts are quite clear that there are systematic failings at a conventional and €U level to uphold the rules.
The €U club are putting out the begging bowl when it is clear that they have reserves enough to sort this out themselves. If the continent wants any credibility, it needs to stop scavving and sort out the mess it got itself into.
I found the reason for David's and Greasy Madelson speaking out. On the same day we had the following in the 'red tops':"SENIOR Eurocrats are secretly plotting to create a super-powerful EU president to realise their dream of abolishing Britain":http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/318045/EU-plot-to-scrap-Britain
[qoute]The new bureaucrat, who would not be directly elected by voters, is set to get sweeping control over the entire EU and force member countries into ever-greater political and economic union...Tellingly, the UK has been excluded from the confidential discussions within the shady “Berlin Group” of Europhile politicians, spearheaded by German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle... Lord Stoddart confirmed the existence of the plot thanks to a parliamentary written answer in the House of Lords. He asked Foreign Office ministers to reveal what they knew about the merger talks.
In response to his inquiry, Tory Foreign Office minister Lord Howell of Guildford said: “We are aware of one group of EU foreign ministers meeting on an informal basis to discuss a variety of issues related to the future governance of the EU.[/quote]
David's little piece is nothing more than a bit of distraction, and a failure to do his job. He is employed to write about British politics and instead is writing about a failed politician, when far more important news breaks.
Thank you, Cutters, for exposing the basis of your hatred of the EU. Of course it's because 'senior Eurocrats' aim to abolish Britain, just like they want to abolish the English Channel, eliminate English as a world language and force poor British citizens to become peasant farmers.
Really, if you can believe this you can also believe that the German Foreign Minister is a 'Senior Eurocrat' (if he is, it's to exactly the same extent as William Hague) and that Bagehot, Mandelson, and (for all I know) I are all part of the great EU conspiracy probably led by the Knights of St John.
Give me strength!
Believe what you choose, however this information comes from a member of the House of Lords, not some hack.
The ambition of the €U to take full political control of every nation is well documented, and is indeed what is meant by 'ever closer union'. What citizen would ever wish for the slavery of themselves and others under foreign rule, and that is exactly what being part of the €U means and those that govern the €U mean to happen.
Excuses to the contrary are blind to fact, and are made from naivety or malice or both.