There are many, many good arguments to be used against the EU. Scores of them, in fact. In places it’s massively inefficient. In places there are strong indications of what seems like systemic corruption. Some of the policies it has introduced have been hugely harmful to both people and the planet.
But do the eurosceptics use these as their main lines of attack? No. Instead they wander off into the realms of fantasy to spew out hilariously inane nonsense like this glorious example from leading Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens – easily the most stupid article I’ve read about the EU in years. Read the comments as well and it’ll swiftly become clear why some people assume that all eurosceptics are loons.
Eurosceptics aren’t loons, of course. At least, not all of them. Many eurosceptic complaints are largely valid and – as I’ve argued before – should be paid attention to.
But the maniacs tend to shout the loudest, and in the process end up doing the eurosceptic cause no end of harm. UKIP’s Nigel Farage realised this, hence his attempts to gradually cull the more verbal conspiracy theorists from the party over the last few years and associate with more intelligent and thoughtful critics of the EU like Jens-Peter Bonde and Marta Andreassen. The anti-EU crowd in Ireland have also no doubt realised this now – because one of the major reasons for the huge swing to the Yes camp was undoubtedly because the Irish people were so annoyed at being taken in by the baseless conspiracy theories that the No groups were spewing out last time around.
Because if – as Hitchens does in the article linked above – you wander off into the realms of hyperbole (e.g. the wonderfully idiotic claim that “Increasingly, the provinces of Europe, which until today were countries, will need its permission to exist at all” or the pathetic “Shouldn’t somebody have pointed out that in the recent history of the Continent, yellow stars call up only one dismal image, the mass murder of Europe’s Jews?” – that last especially awful considering the Mail’s support for the Nazis), all you end up doing is discrediting yourself.
Just as if I claimed that the EU’s great because it’ll give us all magical ponies that can fly and shit gold, you’d not pay attention to anything else I said as I was obviously a delusional liar, so do a lot of us get switched off every time a leading eurosceptic makes such obviously stupid remarks as those that run throughout Hitchens’ piece.
There are all sorts of genuine problems with the Lisbon Treaty. There are all sorts of entirely legitimate reasons why the Irish shouldn’t have held a second referendum, and why they should have voted no.
The thing is, I’ve hardly seen *any* of them brought up in the dozens of eurosceptic pieces that I’ve read over the last few days. Instead, eurosceptic arguments still seem largely to revolve around vague emotional appeals to patriotism and national myths, topped off with objectively false misrepresentations of what it is the EU does and is doing. Anyone with half a brain who looks at these arguments for half a minute will write them off as the nonsense that they are – and the eurosceptic cause takes yet another hit.
Every time you make such wild claims – and they turn out to be unfounded – you are alienating potential allies. When Lisbon comes into force and life in the EU continues much as before, proving all the claims that this treaty is in any way significant to be objectively false (because no matter what many eurosceptics claim, Lisbon *is* just a tidying-up exercise) – when member states continue to run themselves, when the threatened abortion clinics and enforced involvement in military campaigns fail to materialise – then anyone with half a brain will be able to see that the claims of the eurosceptics were false, and so stop paying them any further attention.
So come on, eurosceptic types – for your own sake start with the *proper* arguments against the EU. Stop all this hyperbolic emotional guff that’s characterised so much of the debate over the last couple of decades, and make with the convincing critical analysis. Stop with all the pathetic and blatantly false comparisons to dictatorships past and present. End the “EUSSR” meme – that only makes everyone who uses it look like a moron.
Instead, try pointing out what’s *actually* wrong with the EU, rather than make up nonsense about Lisbon ending Irish neutrality, forcing abortion, ending national sovereignty, creating a superstate and so on. You’ll find that you’ll win a lot more support – whereas at the moment you’re just preaching to the converted (as the comments to Hitchens’ piece perfectly prove).
It’s not like it’s a difficult target – the EU’s got so much wrong with it it’s like blasting away at the proverbial fish in a barrel. No one with any critical faculties can look at the EU and think it’s perfect. There’s simply no need for all the nonsense that Hitchens and co like to spew.
(And yes, I know that not all eurosceptics use the sorts of silly arguments noted above. The point is that as long as a vocal minority of eurosceptics do, the entire cause is going to continue to be damaged by association.)
Tim, I agree with that philosophical framework. But you have produced a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because powers should be exercised at the correct level that the EU is never the correct level.
Whether or not you are right, I think it’s safe to say that you are in a pretty small minority if you think that things like climate change or the ozone hole should be dealt with at municipal level. Oh, I forgot. You don’t believe that climate change is caused by humans either. So that puts you in another small minority.
Tim – again, ideology, not argument, with an attempt to be patronising thrown in for good measure.
You believe that big government is bad. Fine. You believe that the EU is bigger government than national? That’s merely an opinion.
The European Commission has a total staff (including translators, secretaries, cleaners, canteen workers, etc.) of c.35,000 – far, far smaller than many British government departments. Add the staff of the Council and Parliament on top, you’ve still got a total “EU” workforce not much bigger than that at the UK’s Department of Work and Pensions.
This to run most of a continent. I’d say that’s pretty efficient, pretty small government.
And then, of course, there’s the fact that by having things decided at EU level we’re reducing the need for scores of national-level civil servants and politicians to implement legislation, reducing the size – and cost – of government even further.
Of course you have a point about the levels of scrutiny and accountability that having decisions taken at an EU level imply. No one, that I’m aware of, has ever denied it.
Which is why so many pro-EU types advocate reforms to increase the ability of national parliaments to scrutinse EU legislation (as brought in, in part, by the Lisbon Treaty), to increase the democratic involvement from the people (the resistance to Lisbon Treaty referenda mostly coming from governments keen to avoid another decade of negotiations), and to increase the transparency of the entire process by, for example, opening up Council meetings.
And the subsidiarity point, which you drop in as if to imply that pro-EU types are opposed to such a concept, is something I’ve long regarded to be absolutely fundamental. *Of course* powers should be exercised at the correct level.
As far as I’m concerned, there are large numbers of policy areas that currently fall under an EU remit that shouldn’t, because they’d be more effectively dealt with at a more local level. If I believe that, it is my job to *prove* that.
You state that “There are no powers that should be exercised in a political system at EU level” – fine. You believe that. But without *justifying* that belief, you merely come across as somebody acting on faith alone. To win an argument, you need to rationally and clearly demonstrate the point.
Because to state that *nothing* is best dealt with at an inter-/supra-national level implies that you think cross-border crime, terrorism, immigration, energy security, trade, environmental policies and so on and so on (those are the main ones that convince me of the need for something like the EU to exist) can all be determined at a level below that of the EU. So where? National? Regional? By county? Borough? Village? Ward? Street? House?
And furthermore, given that some issues affect more than one house, region and even country, why would it not make sense for people who are all affected by the same issue to pool their resources?
Because what you are implicitly advocating by stating “There are no powers that should be exercised in a political system at EU level” without any kind of elaboration or explanation (beyond “I don’t like big government, so ner!”) is the destruction of society itself.
In other words no, it’s not a simple idea at all.
“Oh, I forgot. You don’t believe that climate change is caused by humans either.”
You’ll have to look long and very hard indeed to find me saying anything so damn stupid. Sorry, but you’ve got me confused with someone else there.
“Whether or not you are right, I think it’s safe to say that you are in a pretty small minority if you think that things like climate change or the ozone hole should be dealt with at municipal level.”
You missed a very important qualifier there. “There are no powers that should be exercised in a political system at EU level.”…..”political system”.
I’m entirely happy with the idea of cooperation. No problem at all with the idea of, say, the WTO. It deals with trade issues only, each and every member has one vote and a veto. You can leave any time you want. Great.
What I do have a problem with is the “political system” bit.
I’ve no problem with the idea of international treaties like Kyoto (I happen to think that was a very bad one but that’s another matter: I’m not against the idea that we might need an international agreement on CO2 emissions. As an earlier example, I’m not enamoured of the actual way that the Montreal Protocol worked (about CFCs) but the idea that there should have been *an* agreement is fine) but I do have, as I say, a problem with the idea that simply because sometimes such international agreements are necessary then we should set up an international polity.
The idea that we need the EU, the political system, to deal with climate change doesn’t even work in its own terms. To deal with emissions we’ll need the agreement and cooperation of (at the very least) the US, India and China. But absolutely no one at all is suggesting that we should have “ever closer political union” with the US, India and China to solve this problem. Thus all are indeed agreeing that we don’t need “ever closer political union” to deal with climate change. We just need an international agreement that deals with climate change.
Insideur – Even if you don’t buy into the man-made climate change thing, there’s still plenty of areas where cross-border environmental legislation can be agreed as necessary by all but the most obsinate.
For example, were Europe a continent of nation states, as in the past, what was to stop Germany from pumping industrial waste into the Rhine, to be swept downstream, polluting the Netherlands, before settling in the North Sea, poisoning the fish relied upon by British, Danish and Norwegian fishermen? All we could do was ask nicely.
But sorry, I forgot – there’s no need for any levels of decision-making or arbitration above the national…
“For example, were Europe a continent of nation states, as in the past, what was to stop Germany from pumping industrial waste into the Rhine, to be swept downstream, polluting the Netherlands, before settling in the North Sea, poisoning the fish relied upon by British, Danish and Norwegian fishermen? All we could do was ask nicely.”
Err, no.
http://www.iksr.org/?L=3
International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.
“The Convention signed in 1999 replaces the Treaty of Bern signed in 1963 as well as the Chemical Convention of 1976 ”
etc, etc, etc. The EU is now a signatory….but so are all the riparian states individually. This is one of those things that has been absorbed into the EU (in a way) rather than something created by it. And yes, similar agreements cover the Danube, the Nile, Rio Grande and other rivers that run internationally: note, please, without there needing to be “ever closer political union”.
If you’d like my argument more formally then. Consider the question that Ronald Coase asked about firms (and note that his answer won him the Nobel). Why do firms exist? Why do not people simply contract with each other: what is the benefit of having things under the same ownership, of long term contracting if you wish? And if there are benefits which lead to that being a better system, then why is there anyone at all still being a contractor? Why isn’t all economic activity being carried out in a few large multi-nationals?
The answer is that of course there are costs and benefits to both approaches: having a firm leads to a reduction in transaction costs. You don’t have to send out tenders, choose someone, negotiate, every time you want something done. Excellent. But there are also costs to this “enforced cooperation” system. The overheads of running the firm for example. The losses which will come from diseconomies of scale (yes, they exist just as much as economies of scale do). The opportunity costs of always using the inhouse option rather than contracting it out to a specialist.
The model transfers over neatly to international cooperation. Those who are arguing that we need the EU to deal with all of these complex problems are making exactly the same argument that is used in favour of the firm itself. That by continuously cooperating with the same people then we’ll reduce transaction costs and thus get to the desired goal more efficiently.
People like me who are arguing against the EU as this hub of cooperation are making the argument for the contractual basis. In essence, that the transaction costs of continual reassessment of who we cooperate with and how, through international agreements, will be lower than the deadweight costs imposed by a single political system.
That example of the Rhine is a nice one: we agree that we need to control what goes into the Rhine: but the costs of doing so by making an agreement with Switzerland are a great deal less than trying to subsume Switzerland into a single political order to control what goes into the Rhine. And we make the same judgement about climate change too as above. Having a treaty with India is cheaper than bringing them into the EU.
“Because to state that *nothing* is best dealt with at an inter-/supra-national level implies that you think cross-border crime, terrorism, immigration, energy security, trade, environmental policies and so on and so on (those are the main ones that convince me of the need for something like the EU to exist) can all be determined at a level below that of the EU.”
The error you’re making is to assume that without the EU we would not be able to deal with these things at a level higher than national. Which, as the very existence of international treaties shows, is nonsense. The question is rather, which system of international cooperation should we use? The firm model or the contractor model?
As I say, everyone has already bought into the contractor model at some point: Montreal, Kyoto, NATO, that Rhine agreement and so on.
All I’m saying is that the internal costs (no, of course not purely monetary) of taking the firm model, the EU model, are greater than those of the contracting model.
As an example: Sr. Barroso has made the point that the purpose of the EU is to stop Germany invading France. Again. (No, really, he did, even if in jest.) The firm model, the EU model, as it plays out in practice, leads to a fat Portuguese dwarf telling me what light bulbs I may use in my living room in England.
That’s too high a cost for that model: we should be using the contracting one instead.
Tim my apologies for the misrepresentation of your beliefs on climate change. I should have done my research.
Your point about the specific nature of the EU system is clearer to me now, and I like the analogy of the Rhine that you and Nosemonkey are using. I would most certainly agree that it would be unnecessary and indeed highly undesirable to subsume Switzerland into the Eu just to deal with the problem of pollution of the Rhine.
But as you know, the EU is about a lot more than river pollution. And therefore your contracting model, which works fine for a situation where countries have relatively few points of discussion over areas that are of mutual interest or concern, falls down. Because the fundamental assumption behind the development of the EU is the exact opposite: that in this increasingly interconnected world, the impacts that we have on our neighbours become ever more significant.
Indeed, as you say, the same logic can be applied to economic activity. Why have we seen the rise of large multinational corporations? Precisely because of the “firm” logic you describe. I challenge you to find a lightbulb, whether incandescent or otherwise, that is designed, manufactured, and sold only in your twon, or your county, or England, or indeed the UK. The overwhelming bulk of market share in lightbulbs worldwide is held by large multinationals. This wouldn”t have been true in 1960. It is just one example, but it does illustrate the trend.
The fact is that the “firm” model of economic activity is growing in importance in parallel with the “firm” model of international organisation. This parallel growth is not a coincidence. You may be in favour of retreating from globalisation and internationalisation, but you’re currently swimming against the tide.
“I challenge you to find a lightbulb, whether incandescent or otherwise, that is designed, manufactured, and sold only in your twon, or your county, or England, or indeed the UK. The overwhelming bulk of market share in lightbulbs worldwide is held by large multinationals.”
You might find that you don’t want to continue with this industry as an example: as it’s one that I work in.
Please note that my argument is not for economic localism (designed and manufactured in my town). It is about what method are we going to use in economic cooperation around the globe. Those light bulb companies. Do they mine their own sand to make the glass? No. Do they mine their own mercury for the charges of CFLs and metal halides? No. Do they mine wolframite and smelt it to make tungsten filaments? No. Do they mine scandium oxide so as to make metal halide bulbs work? No, in fact they don’t. I get it for them. In fact, I get the raw material from somewhere in Kazakhstan, then refine it in Moscow, then sell it on. To a company which makes the mercury charges. It is those completed mercury charges that the light bulb companies (Osram, Phillips and GE) purchase. Everything up to the putting together of the glass and the mercury is done by other firms, companies and groups on a purely contractual basis.
And the thing is, the development of multinationals since the 1960s is of *more* such contracting out of activities, not more consolidation into the centre, into the firm. Those mercury charges were made by the light bulb companies themselves back then. Then, in the 70s and 80s the company that makes the charges now was dealing directly with the mine to get the scandium. In the 90s we arrived on the scene and another level of contracting was born.
This is true right across the board: the multinationals are retreating from owning everything, producing all of their component parts, spinning off everything that is not a core competence. For the transaction costs of doing so have fallen as technology changes.
So if we are to continue the analogy of the political and the firm then the arguments in favour of the EU as the firm model are also failing. It is, for example, a great deal easier now to organise a Rhine Conference than it was only 50 years ago. Transport, information flow, are vastly easier. So rather than insisting on moving more to the firm model, we should be insisting on moving more to the contractual.
Bit like generals always ready to fight the last war: and there’s another example there as well. The Single Market is based upon hte idea that more trade is good: quite correct. But also that we should be trading with those geographically close to us: not correct, for trade geography is not as the crow flies. Oddly, the container ship and the Treaty of Rome both happened within 6 months of each other. And it was the container ship which changed the trade geography. If you’re on the container network, if you can load up a comtainer onto a railway car at the door of your factory, then you’re on the global trade network. If you cannot you’re not. Some factory in Shanghai is now part of the trade geography of Rotterdam, or Brindisi, in a way that some mountaintop village above Brescia or Gstaad is not.
But because we’re using this firm system, that because we’re countries geogrpahically close to each other, rather than using the contracting system which would recognise trade geography, we’re getting it wrong. We have trade barriers against cheap shows from China for example.
Tim I’m delighted that we can learn from your own experience of the lightbulb industry.
Now I may have misunderstood here, so please correct me if I am wrong. The lightbulb multinationals are contracting out the production of their raw materials and the manufacture of some of the components and other elements needed for their product, right? But who are they contracting that out to? To small companies that operate locally and sell locally? No. They are contracting out to other multinationals who specialise in other parts of the business. You are drawing a false analogy, it seems to me, between the move of the multinational BRANDS towards their end customers and away from their raw materials, and a shift away from the “firm” model. The multinational lightbulb brands, while shedding some of the elements of their traditional business, have replaced those with new elements. they are not shrinking the scope of their activities; they are just shifting it.
The logic can also be applied to the EU, and I wouldn’t disagree: the EU is a structure that needs to be more adaptable to the changing realities of the globalised world. For example, it ought to be able to shed the CAP, which was a tool created for the purpose of feeding a starving post-war Europe, and move into areas that are more relevant today, such as economic regulation.
But the way you describe the lightbulb example, I don’t see any evidence of a move away from the firm model.
“To small companies that operate locally and sell locally?”
Why are you so fascinated by this “local” thing? It’s a global marketplace, not local.
As to small companies, yes. We’re three people and yes, we do 80% of the global trade in (this admittedly very small indeed) market.
Yes, I would say that three people as a subcontractor (to a subcontractor) to Phillips, GE and Osram is indeed a move away from the firm model. We may be global but we’re damn small.
I get the impression that the firms/contractors analogy is leading us away from the point, to an extent. But let’s see if I’ve got this right.
Of course it sometimes makes sense to subcontract, rather than do everything in house. The EU does this as well, via the subsidiarity principle, devolving decision-making to an appropriate level. (In theory, at least. We all know that this doesn’t yet work very well in practice, but it is, at least, one of the key stated aims for the EU’s operation, and there have been a few promising moves in that direction in recent years – albeit not as many as I’d like.)
The thing is, though, that although the lightbulbs industry can function via lots of little subcontractors, it is still the big multinationals – the likes of Phillips, GE and Osram, judging by Tim’s examples – who bring the whole thing together and deliver the finished product to the consumer.
The EU is, to follow the analogy, more like one of these big multinationals. No matter how many things are subcontracted, those big firms will still exist, because they provide a vital function. In the case of lightbulbs, providing product specifications for the subcontractors to adhere to (and an easy point of reference and coordination for all the various subcontractors, suppliers, distributors and retailers, so that they don’t have to keep track of everyone in the supply chain themselves, as well as a final arbitrator as and when contractural disputes may arise – and contractual disputes are more likely the more subcontractors are involved). In the case of the EU, it’s providing rules and regulations for the lower levels of governance to adhere to.
So, subcontracting may well be a sensible cost-saving route, but a certain amount of centralisation is still necessary to provide a guiding hand and prevent inefficiencies. That’s where the big multinationals fit in in a globalised industry; that’s where the EU fits in when it comes to the European economy. (And yes, in a globalised world it probably would be better for the level of governance to be set even higher than merely continental, but we’re not quite at that stage yet – hell, we haven’t even properly managed it on a continental level yet.)
We’re alomst there then.
“The EU is, to follow the analogy, more like one of these big multinationals. No matter how many things are subcontracted, those big firms will still exist, because they provide a vital function.”
Continuing with the analogy we now need to find something which is a vital function which the EU should be fulfilling. To find that we need to find something which is indeed a vital function and further, a function which can only be (or at the very least, would be best performed by) done by political union between 27 countries.
As, as I’ve already indicated, there are no such vital functions that meet these two standards then the EU should not exist.
Where there are indeed vital functions (riparine environments, climate change, trade) then we are all already agreed that the contractual method is best: vide the Rhine, Kyoto and the WTO. Hech, even human rights are a contractual basis with the Council of Europe.
Where we have things that the EU is doing which are not contractual arrangements, but are firm style arrangements, they are not vital functions: CAP, the absurdity that is the CFP, banning light bulbs, limiting the freedom to set our own working hours, etc etc.
Thus the EU should not exist.
And so we’re back to square one. You’ve *asserted* that there’s nothing that makes sense to run at EU level, but you haven’t *demonstrated* this.
As noted above, I don’t think that a continental level is the ideal one for many of the multi-/supra-national roles that the EU provides. Ideally it would be much larger in scope.
At the same time, I don’t think that a *national* level is very often the best for many of the roles currently fulfilled by nation state governments.
But you work with what you’ve got. Before, we only had nation states, so we worked with that. Now we’ve got the EU, so we work with that too.
You advocate withdrawing from the EU – presumably this is back to the earlier nation states model? The thing is, though, that the old nation states model can’t be returned to. As you note, global organisations like the WTO exist, modifying the old way that states worked with each other. Likewise, the EU exists, modifying the way European states work with each other.
I was challenged to provide a counterfactual earlier, showing what I reckoned would happen if the UK pulled out of the EU. That’s what you’re advocating – and so you need to do the same.
And if you’re advocating the complete dissolution of the EU, then your task is even larger – because you have to demonstrate that all 27 member states would be better off having to do what they do via the EU through alternative multilateral routes.
In other words, what you’re advocating appears to be a return to old-style multilateral national diplomacy. Which is fine. But considering that for the last 50 years Europe has been moving away from this model (due largely to all its inefficiencies and failures), you need to explain precisely why and how you think it would be better.
You’re always bringing up your apple geranium leaves in jam, delving into the details – yet when it comes to presenting your alternative you seem only to talk in terms of broad generalities.
And here – to make things clear – I’m using “you” to mean not just you, Tim Worstall, but you, eurosceptics in general. Criticising is easy. Coming up with genuinely viable alternatives is very hard indeed.
“In other words, what you’re advocating appears to be a return to old-style multilateral national diplomacy. Which is fine. But considering that for the last 50 years Europe has been moving away from this model (due largely to all its inefficiencies and failures), you need to explain precisely why and how you think it would be better.”
No, rather you need to explain why giving a polity the power to regulate apple geranium leaves in jam is better than the multi lateral model.
I’m even willing, arguendo, to agree that the EU is indeed better, in theory, than certain multilateral solutions. But in practice, the EU always ends up, as any new polity will and a multilateral solution won’t, arguing about jams and lightbulbs. The costs of which I think are greater than the possible inefficiencies of the multilateral approach.
You think differently: great, prove it.
Worstall; Why is it always about you, your definitions of what it should be, and why it shouldn’t exist because it fails to meet your definition? I think your sole purpose should be to bring me food and wine. As you do neither, you should not exist. Doesn’t seem fair does it?
On an issue like international aid it makes far more sense to centralise coordination of programmes and activities for several reasons. Firstly, this removes the “doublage” of aid, whereby several donor organisations approach and execute the same task in different ways, often introducing contradictory or conflict modus operandi into a developing environment, thus complicating and undermining the situation, as opposed to ameliorating it. It also allows for the creation of a dedicated base of expertise among private sector contractors, increasingly able to understand the European development environment and thus tailor their operations to the European standard, ensuring both institutional development and personal development among the companies and contractors engaged in such work, again reinforcing aid effectiveness. In addition to these points, it allows for the contracting organisations such as EuropeAid to build up a body of in house expertise, as well as “institutional memory”, that serve to further support aid effectiveness through continual monitoring and evaluation processes, reviews, and optimisation of flawed or failing imlementation strategies. While the member states mostly retain their development agencies, under initiatives such as the Paris Declaration aid is becoming increasingly streamlined and effective, especially since the centralisation of aid under the EU institutions reduces the effect of national agendas (as you mentioned earlier, one must bear in mind what happens when European nations divide up the world).
Then there is policy. Surely centralised policy making again mitigates the chances for national agendas in the international market, often far more susceptible to corporate lobbying (the effects of which can be seen by the oil lobby continuously undermining renewable energies, for example), to affect policy; bureaucratising everything to the extent that it must be approved by 27 different nations surely reduces the ability of individual ministers and ministries, or even countries, to follow through their corrupt plans.
It would also seem to be that democratic governance would be far cleaner if managed by a third, international party. As one can see by the United Nations, it is impossible to really stop anyone messing around on a global scale through policy and politics. However, with a limited membership like the EU, it may become increasingly possible to ensure that all EU citizens are protected by the same rights, and that I, as a citizen, may resort to a third party, the European Institutions, as and when (increasingly likely in the UK) my own government fails me. In addition to this, the 27 countries of European can again reach increasingly objective conclusions when common ground must be found between them; the UK may see fit to detain someone for 28 days without legal representation (which is a significant cost to a working man who doesn’t have your “reputation”), but if a strong European Union were present, perhaps such transgressions could be mitigate, or avoid.
If you make straw man arguments against the European Union, you will of course win. However, to my youthful eyes, rosily tinted by the idealism that a lack of years brings, the EU has already achieved some great things, and may achieve greater things yet, given time and cooperation. I would go so far to say that it is the best hope us little people have of truly democratic governance to date, even if it is a monolithic bureautic mess staffed with the occassional madman.
Find the missing “d”.
No, Tim. I don’t have to prove anything – because the EU exists. I’m arguing in favour of *a modification* of the status quo. You’re arguing for its wholesale rejection.
If the EU didn’t exist, and I was arguing for its formation, then yes – the onus would be on me to make the case. But the situation is the precise opposite.
Your point of view is, therefore, advocating a huge change in the status quo – and therefore, like any extreme or revolutionary viewpoint, needs justification and clarification to convince people to back it.
As it stands, all you’re doing is proving my point that eurosceptics really don’t argue their case at all well. Hell, you’re even agreeing with me on that much by *refusing* to argue your case.
“On an issue like international aid”
At maximum 0.5% of the EU area economy. We shoudl have 80% of our Statutory Instruments determined by Brussels in order to deal with 0.5% of the economy? Yank again, there’s bells on the other one. Especiallçy as EU directed aid is generally determined to be completely shite. Worse than useless, actively harmful (go read some Bill Easterly).
“Surely centralised policy making again mitigates the chances for national agendas in the international market, often far more susceptible to corporate lobbying”
If you think that Brussels is *less* likely to succumb to corporate lobbying then you’re smoking some seriously strong shit there. We have huge tariffs on Chinese and Vietnamese shoes precisely because Brussels caved in to the shoe manufacturers. 500 million people must pay more for their shoes so that a few hundred small firms (180,000 workers all told) in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal don’t go bust.
“It would also seem to be that democratic governance would be far cleaner if managed by a third, international party.”
If you cannot vote the bastards out then it ain’t a democracy, is it?
“Worstall; Why is it always about you, your definitions of what it should be, and why it shouldn’t exist because it fails to meet your definition?”
Actually, I stood for election on my ideas just a few months back. The party I was standing for, the one espousing these views, that we should leave the EU, came second. Yes, beat both Labour and the Lib Dems. I’d say that my ideas and definitions have a decentish amount of popular support actually. Indeed, if the UK were offered the referendum that everyone promised then I think my ideas would be in the majority.
“because the EU exists.”
No, it doesn’t not with legal personality. Not until Vaslav Klaus puts his signature to the Lisbon Treaty.
Your turn.
You complain because international aid is a pifflingly small 0.5% of the EU’s economy, so not worth btohering with? Fine.
The total GDP of the EU27 (not necessarily the best method of working these things out, I know) is c.12,250bn euros per year.
The EU’s total annual budget? 120bn euros (in 2007) – a little under 1%.
So by your logic we shouldn’t worry about the EU budget, right?
And as for “80% of our statutory instruments”? – I call utter rubbish.
Again – one of my other key complaints about the eurosceptic argument – relying on false statistics on the assumption that no one can be bothered to check them out.
This works fine for a while – but sooner or later the anti-EU cause gets caught in a big lie that no one can miss (like “Lisbon will bring in abortion clinics” or “Lisbon will end Irish neutrality”), and the anti-EU support base will collapse.
Yes, UKIP may currently have a high level of support (for numerous reasons, not all to do with their policies) – but that support is based on a misunderstanding of the EU among the electorate brought about by a combination of poor press reporting, shoddy EU PR, and wilful, deliberate deception on the part of the anti-EU crowd. Just like that 80% claim, in fact – a claim that has been repeated so often that it’s usually accepted at face value, and yet it’s total nonsense.
When people discover that your claims about the EU’s pernicious influence are based upon exaggerations and lies, they will turn against the eurosceptics. And my whole point is that this is bad for *all* of us. We *need* strong critics of the EU – but we need constructive ones, who base their criticisms on the facts, not on a combination of ideology and lies.
“No it doesn’t”
Come on, Tim. You’re an intelligent man. You can do better than that. I’m trying to have a genuine discussion, and you’re resorting to shutting your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and going “ner ner ner”?
Is that seriously the best you’ve got?
“The EU’s total annual budget? 120bn euros (in 2007) – a little under 1%.
So by your logic we shouldn’t worry about the EU budget, right?”
I tend not to, you’re correct. It’s the rest of it that worries me. The CFP, for example, quite possibly the worst regulatory regime for fisheries in the entire world (it’s worse than not having one at all, certainly) is not included in that budget figure.
If we’re going to have cap and trade (I’d prefer carbon tax but…) then we should auction all permits. The EU has insisted that no one can auction them all. That’s not in the budget.
“a genuine discussion, ” So am I. I do not see any reason that the EU should exist. Everything that is actually desirable to be done at a supermnational level can be better done on the treaty, contractual basis. Everything else that the EU does isn’t desirable.
What’s not genuine about that? There’s reams of examples, of information, of details, above. All I’m getting back from you is, well, this is where we are. Yes, and that’s what I’m complaining about!
Here’s, quite by chance, something from the EU that just arrived in my inbox:
“Under REACH, multi-constituent substances are described as ‘well-defined’. This terminology belies the fact that characterization for the purpose of registration can, in some cases, present a significant analytical challenge. The successful analysis of multi-constituent substances requires a combination of in-depth knowledge of the chemical processes used to prepare them and a well-chosen suite of tests.”
Yes, that monstrous abortion of a law about chemicals assumes that things are “well defined” and then we’ve got to have a training course because of course they’re not, so we’ve all got to go off and learn how to make them so.
While I was registering one chemical I found out that I couldn’t register an oxide. I could register the metal, other compounds, but not the oxide. Why? Because the fools who wrote the law assumed that you wouldn’t have to register oxygen: fair enough, it is all around us after all. But this means that as you do not need to register O, thefore you cannot, so (to make up the chemical name) I can register BiMgLuCl, but not BiMgLuO.
And these cretins want to try and run a continent?
I simply dfo not see them doing anything well, even the things that arguably might be done better at supranational level. Thus we shouldn’t be using them to do anything.
Tim Worstall: Tell the Indonesians they don’t need our food because it’s shite, or the raped women of the Kenyan forest tribes they don’t need our democratisation and justice processes because rape is just fine, or the South Africans that they don’t need our AIDS medicines because a shower will cure it.
I don’t think it’s more susceptible than the UK, where the bribery, kickbacks and profiteering have been well documented, and the endemic corruption in the seat of government is clear. I’d say there are far more honest Eurocrats that British bureaucrats. I can’t vote out the Labour Government either. You can’t vote parties out. Only in. For a clever guy you sure are stupid. I didn’t know you stood for election. I guess your “ideas” were so popular you didn’t get voted in. Which is why you no longer represent UKIP.
Oh, you can’t register a chemical? I’m so sorry for you Tim. Baby P, and those cretins want to run a country? You’re a bigger jackass than I thought.
Come now, Hunter dearest – lay off the personal stuff. It may be frustrating, but the second you resort to name-calling you undermine your entire argument.
Tim – “I simply dfo not see them doing anything well”
Who is this “they”?
Like any organisation, the EU’s functionaries are a myriad of individuals like you or I (and that’s before we start to note that much of the groundwork of drawing up EU legislation and regulations is actually done at nation state level, so small is the EU’s in-house workforce – that whole subcontracting thing again).
What makes these individuals so incompetent?
Why can’t we hire more competent ones?
If it’s the system that’s flawed, why can’t we fix the system?
If large multinationals can function effectively with large workforces, why can’t large government-style organisations?
And why is the EU an especially incompetent case, when its workforce is so much smaller than that of the governmental machinery of numerous nation states?
And, more to the point, (although you may have found an instance where it didn’t work) isn’t it better – should you wish to register a new chemical – to be able to register it in multiple countries simultaneously, rather than have to file papers to 27 different offices, in more than a dozen different languages? Doesn’t that have the potential to save you time and money?
Nosemonkey,
Unfortunately it would be tedious to those who are not in my trade if I keep refering to aspects of haulage .I obviously have not explained the full situation well enough.
If I may just make one example, when in a meeting with a transport minister and a couple of civil servants, when a complaint was made about French controls near the channel ports and why cant we do the same, the mandarins replied that it was illegal under EU law.The French can do it, we cant. Same laws, different culture .
I hope I have made it clear though, that I dont blame the EU in the whole for our tribulations, but our unsuitability to this project .
Hunter,
Why are you so angry ? What reason do you have to hate EUrosceptics ?
Has your job, trade, way of life been affected by anything EUrosceptics have done ?
There’s a lot of water under the bridge since I last commented, even though it was only a few hours ago… good work, folks.
Tim, sadly, you didn’t address my main observation on the issue of the parallel growth of multinationals and international organisations. The fact that your own company employs three people is neither here nor there. My contention is that multinationals are growing, and that their number is growing. Therefore, the “firm” model that you so dislike is growing. Philips may have shed the upper levels of the supply chain, but it has compensated by growing into distribution. Right around the corner from me in Brussels, there is a large lighting retailer called Massive. It’s just a Philips brand, and all the lamps and bulbs on sale are Philips. This is a business that Philips was not in 20 years ago. So it has not shrunk; it has shifted.
Why do multinational businesses shift? Because the dynamics of the market push them to cut costs and increase efficiencies. My argument is that the EU is like a multinational business. It wouldn’t exist at all if the market didn’t want it. And the market is the countries that join it. This is not to say that it’s a smooth, well-oiled machine. Like Philips, maybe it should get out of some businesses, and move into others. Sadly, it’s a lot less agile than Philips. Bu I think the analogy holds.
I’m afraid that I have to agree with Nosemonkey about where your argument goes. In the end, what you have said in all the long comments you have posted above boils down to the assertion that the EU is not necessary, and that it therefore ought not to exist. But you have not given any satisfactory arguments for why it is not necessary. And more fundamentally, you seem to be unwilling to accept the reality that the intertia of the status quo needs to be shifted by something, or it will not change. That something is persuasive arguments against the system, or at least parts of it. And sadly, if the best we can come up with is, “the system is unnecessary and I know this because I know it”, we won’t get very far.
The incandescent lightbulb ban is not an inevitable consequence of having the EU, as you seem to suggest. It’s a policy decision. You can agree or disagree with the policy decision. But the institutions of the EU are not pre-configured to take certain policy decisions. They are a law-based framework for discussions leading to such policy decisions, just as is the WTO, and just as is the UN. If you believe that leaving the EU will restore you to a political system (the UK) that will inevitably come up with much better policy decisions, you are deluding yourself.
I think it is indisputably the case that some things at least ought to be taken away from the EU and left to Member States. I’ve mentioned the CAP in that regard. Others might disagree with me, but I think the evidence base for that argument is strong. But I think the evidence base for the contention that lightbulb bans or jam labeling regulations should be left to Member States is much, much weaker. Nothing you have said has really convinced me otherwise – despite my hope that you could use your own line of business to illustrate your points.
As my comments seem to have been unwelcome, I offer an unreserved apology for my behaviour.
Robin: My local pub happens to be the hideout for UKIP. At least we managed to get rid of the BNP. It’s nothing personal, I’m just a little tired of it all.
36 Insideur
Actually not so regarding being overly influenced by the British media.
Agree with you that the British media European coverage is poor, but you must bear in mind that most of the “serious” British media is europhile rather than sceptic – definitely so in the case of the BBC and Channel 4, but also the FT, Guardian, Independent and Economist in the print media. The Times faces both ways. Not sure whether you would consider the Telegraph to be serious or not? Some of their writers are serious, so you could say the Telegraph is the only Eurosceptic part of the British media. The Scotsman is also Europhile by the way.
Name dropping (apologies) I can remember discussing the issue with Harold Wilson just before he became PM for the second time at a Labour Party students do. Wison was a genuine internationalist of the old school and a serious peacenick which is why he fortunately kept us out of Vietnam. Naturally he was on the fence on the EU issue, but he did stress the peace in Europe line as the big argument in favour, rather than economics in his off the record chats. (He was the driving force behind the Esperanto movement you know, and wanted Esperanto to be the only official language of the EU.)
Also remember Mike Gapes from that long ago time (he is now the Europhile chairman of the HoC Foreign Affairs select committee). In those days he wore the de rigeur Mao suit and denounced me as a bougeois capitalist lackey and opposed the EU as an impediment to building the Fourth International, so like you it seems he has changed his mind!
Plenty of people do of course. Chris Huhne was a big Forth International man too and can vaguely recall him squaring the circle by arguing the EU was the route to build the Fouth International which was why he was leaving his job on Red Merseyside with the Liverpool Echo and applying to work for the Economist in Brussels. Presumably Cohn-Bendit still takes this view?
In the real world I worked for a major European multinational for many years including stints in both France and Germany. My personal disenchantment with the Project really began in the 1980s when I was involved in various Commission consultative committees set up to help design the single currency.
For what it is worth I continued to mix with senior people in the Labour Party (including a minor involvement in drafting “the longest suicide note in history”), but left when Bryan Gould lost the leadership election, and Labour subsequently reversed its position on the EU. I suppose its a moot point whether Gould would ever have become PM, but had he done so then presumably the UK would no longer be an EU member?
Please forgive this egoistic CV which I was tempted to post a few months ago when Nosemonkey told me I was a “xenophobe” and should “grow up” – if only I was still young enough to do so!
Mark – I’d disagree with your assessment of the FT, BBC and Economist as being europhile, though I guess that depends on your point of view. I’ve noticed all of them being decidedly critical on numerous occasions. Unless by “europhile” you mean “accepting of British membership”? I always consider it to mean something far more enthusiastic, myself.
On The Scotsman, though, you’re flat-out wrong. The Executive Editor of The Scotsman is Bill Jamieson, former Economics Editor of the Sunday Telegraph, author of the decidedly eurosceptic “Britain Beyond Europe” as well as numerous outright anti-EU pamphlets and articles for the Bruges Group. He joined in part because he liked the paper’s editorial line, and that line has continued since he’s been there. The only slight modification to the general anti-EU tone is that public opinion in Scotland is generally more pro-EU than south of the border, and so they have to be careful not to alienate the readership.
I’d also suggest that – as the shifts in position of the various people you mention over the years might suggest – the EU is a very different beast now to what it was in the 70s and 80s. Maggie Thatcher’s obstinancy did have a significant effect – but only towards the end of and after her time in office. Maastricht changed a lot – and, despite the claims of many eurosceptics, the majority of those changes (the subsidiarity principle in particular) were to the advantage of the more reluctant Europeanism that successive British government have long displayed.
Oh, and I don’t think it was me who called you a xenophobe and told you to grow up. The only comment I can find that uses those phrases in relation to someone called Mark is here, from someone called Ed. That also appears to be the only comment ever left on this site that uses “xenophobe” and “grow up” together.
Further to my rambling musings on the past think I can remember that both the late AJP Taylor and Dame Aggie Ramm being sceptics, but also the late I. Berlin and Freddie Ayer were in favour? Stuart Hampshire was all over the shop? That’s much more interesting and worth taking seriously than the political hacks.
Do people of my student generation see these “towering figures” through rose tinted spectacles? (Do Google them if you have perhaps never heard of some of them.). Is it because we have a nostalgia like the English cricket team was better in the 70s (it wasn’t), or for some reason the nature of national debate has changed (something about university funding?). Can it really be that Garton-Ashe is their equal?
Would AJP and Dame Aggie have posted on blogs had they been around today I wonder? If so Nosemonkey might have got his wish for some serious sceptic arguments.
Don’t think you can argue their views are out of date, not when you are looking at in terms of general political philosophies and the long span of European history. Seems to me the arguments of the 70s are still the same in principle?
79 Nosemonkey – you’re right it was “Ed” not you, apologies. Should read more carefully.
My view of the Scotsman is based on them using Angus Ogg as their main commentator on EU matters.
Mark, I was far too young in the 70s to understand what Europe was, let along European integration. My CV is therefore inevitably much less impressive than yours, and I don’t know first hand what the arguments were back then!
However, on the media, I must (rather boringly) again agree with Nosemonkey. I feel that the Guardian and Independent are the most europhoile of the serious UK media. But their readership is tiny compared to the audicences reached by the BBC, Times, and the Telegraph. As Nosemonkey says, where these media sit on the EU is all relative. Guardian and Independent clearly favour “ever closer unuion”. The FT and the Economist are close to my own views – deeply critical of various aspects of the EU, but in favour of its continued existence and believe that on balance, membership is a benefit. It has been some time since I read the Times regularly. But I can’t remember it facing both ways. My own recollection is that it is not far behind the Telegraph in terms of its hostility to everything European. The Telegraph had that interesting episode when David Rennie was the Brussels correspondent. He said publicly that he had demanded a free voice as a condition of taking on the role. I sensed that the frustration among the editorial staff was a factor in his move to the Economist, and also one of the reasons why Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was allowed to continue a drip-feed of anti-EU stories. Perhaps the most extraordinary expression of the Telegraph’s hostility to the EU is the fact that it grants Christopher Booker the “Notebook” column in the Sunday edition. The result is, as you seem to imply, that on EU issues at least, the Telegraph cannot really be considered a serious paper. And I say that as an avid Telegraph reader, who agrees with the editorial line on large swaths of the rest!
Regardless of the editorial line, only the FT and Economist really cover the EU in anything like satisfactory depth. No reader of any of the other print publications can really be expected to have an informed view on the EU, because they are not informed.
The BBC is absolutely not “europhile” in my opinion, if by that you mean uncritical of the EU. It is scrupulously fair in its coverage, especially since the big report that was done in the days when euro membership was a hot issue.
But at least the BBC covers the EU. The Record Europe is somewhat lightweight, but it is the only programme of its kind of which I am aware, and provides viewers with the basic coverage of day-to-day issues that they need, beyond the headlines.
I suspect that you feel the BBC is europhile because you don’t hear BBC journalists attacking the EU. And since the BBC’s coverage of the EU is greater than that of other media, it “feels” friendly, even if the content is actually presented in a carefully balanced way.
But frankly none of the above matters when the mass circulation papers like the Mail and the Sun are so willing to print mountains of total rubbish about “Brussels”. What is “Brussels” anyway?
Nosemonkey, stop tarring Eurosceptics with the excesses of an obviously lunatic fringe. Sane Eurosceptics find them just as pathetic and irritating as you do, except that we don’t have any reason to give them airtime and attention.
Your blog always seems to attack the most lowbrow Eurosceptic positions: the idiocy about “Corpus Juris” and the definition of Sovereignty, Superstates and all the rest of Ken Adams’ playbook. You write long, good pieces undermining the essentialist account of nationhood, but when it comes to answering the hard Eurosceptic arguments, e.g., at On the EU’s “democratic deficit”, you have in the past run out of steam.
Phew, I’m away working for a couple of days; meanwhile so many people seem to have found time for so much online debate!
Most discussion seems to revolve around trade and commerce: both very important in the EU but not the be-all and end-all of its existence. The EU’s consumer-protection and competition work alone should be applauded (OK they make mistakes – but anyone who doesn’t isn’t trying to do well). Another much protested but generally beneficial area is employment.
I could argue endlessly against the CAP (at least in it’s current form) but the EU has worked wonders in agreeing upon controlling better farming practice (pollution, insecticides, etc). Just don’t mention the Fisheries Policy (so-called).
Another area some find difficult is Justice – asylum, immigration, border controls police and judicial cooperation – but, overall, Europe is better off with them than without. The EU’s Public Health activity is well-regarded by the health profession. Then, there’s transport (Yes, Robin: eg coordinating the building of international motorways and railways, air transport).
Oh, there’s a lot more. All of which have been put in place by democratically elected national governments, by mutual agreement. (eg my grandson would like me to mention Erasmus).
So, what have we got? An organisation that can pass laws, yet has no government; it agrees social policies but it cannot meddle in national welfare policies; it has a single currency yet no economic powers. And it’s messy. None of the above areas is managed properly – but that is an impossibility for any organisation larger than one person. For a governmental institution it has an enormous democratic deficit.
But, overall, I find it a necessary and valuable institution.
A piece of advice for Martin Keegan. Start making more noise than the lunatic fringe. The fact that they are giving you a bad name is not Nosemonkey’s fault.
I’d love to say “yes it IS Nosemonkey’s fault”, but I don’t want to get a reputation as unreasonable in argument ;)
Here is a list (incomplete) of EUrosceptic types.
1; those that think it is a facade for German domination.
2; those that think it is for the French
3; those that think it was set up by the CIA
4; those that think it is a plan by Bilderburgers /Illuminati /Jews/CFR/ Trilateral Commission/ Freemasons/ Vatican/Knights Templars
5 ;those who think it is racist
6; who think it is corporatist
7; think it is fascist
8; undemocratic
9; not suitable for Britain
10; it is corrupt
11; bureaucratic
12; run by elites
13; expensive
14; Communist
15; Nazi
16; the work of the devil.
Now clearly it cant be all of those things some of which are diametricaly opposed , but some are more credible than others .
You EUrophiles will agree with a lot of that list though, wouldn`t you ?
Don’t forget that in the UK it’s a Catholic conspiracy, and in Poland it’s a Protestant conspiracy.
From the list above, I would only consider “run by elites”, “bureaucratic” to have good legitimation and “undemocratic”, “not suitable for Britain” maybe but only maybe also “corporatist” with limited legitimation. The rest is by far and large pure BS.
@Slartibartfas: every large organisation -public or private – needs bureaucracy (and “red tape”): they couldn’t function, otherwise. One of the major problems the EU has it not enough people in their bureaucracy: which is one reason why (a) things take so long and (b) why they often don’t get it right. The EU has to rely on national governments to do a large of the work – and some of those are (shall we say) less efficient than others.
As for the elites – well your government’s ministers and Commissioner appointments are the elites: they are the ones who run it. Believe it or not (and you probably won’t) the Commission is there to serve the Council of Ministers. Why do you think national leaders wanted a weak Commission President (ie Barroso)?
Whether it is “corporatist” (whatever that means) depends on member nations. Those governments created it and hand over more and more functions to it.
As to whether it is “suitable for Britain”. That’ a matter of opinion: and I respect yours.
(NB I note no-one has thought to mention what pressure the US might bring to bear on Cameron’s actions once elected ….. interesting thought?)
@french derek
There is hardly anything you wrote that I would disagree with. I want to add though that I added the “suitable for Britain” thing only because there seem to be so many Britons out there who get not tired repeating that. I am nonetheless sceptical thats why I “limited” the legitimation in my opinion at least. I don’t necessarily think it does not suit Briton, economically it certainly does quite well, but you need also a political will for a certain decree of integration and I fear a large amount of Britons is crudly lacking it. That could possibly change of course, but I don’t see that for now.
I think a supranational organisation has to be bureaucratic and probably will be less efficient than a centralized state, by principle. But its less less bureaucratic and more efficient for what it does than pure international organisations while having a considerably better democratic legitimation.
The point about the elites is not so much of who has the power but that the project is an elite driven one. Thats a problem, we would need a broader support in society for it. Thats one of the greatest problems I identify. Don’t ask me how one could change that to the better.
PS:
I just read my comment above and excuse for the horrible spelling mistakes I had made. ;)
I don’t think the eurosceptics have done a particularly bad job. I mean, there is a reason why every treaty approved since the foundation of the EU has not been subject to popular vote (except for the Constitution that went rather bad and the recent Irish vote).
Personally I think popular support is already won by eurosceptics. So I don’t think that their campaign or communication strategy is flawed. the problem that eurosceptic face is that it doesn’t matter what the public opinion think: the EU is managed by an elite anyway.
No it’s really not that simple Nicolas. Voters do have a choice between eurosceptic and other parties in most countries. They generally don’t elect eurosceptic parties. The UK may be about to break that rule, but the Conservatives in the UK are trying very hard NOT to campaign on EU issues because they know that voters don’t care. Or at least, they don’t care compared to the way they care about Afghanistan or MP corruption or healthcare or taxes, which are all nationally-controlled issues.
Insideur: except for the UK as you say, practically all major parties in every country are pro-EU. Socialdemocrats, Liberals and Christian Democrats they all have similar position regarding the EU. And sorry to disagree, but people do not vote these parties because they back the EU, they vote them because they are the major parties in their countries and they have always done so.
It doesn’t take much to figure out that if the people would have been consulted more frequently the EU would be nowhere.
Nicolas I don’t think you understand the point I am making.
The fact that the main parties are not eurosceptic indicates that the voters they are targeting do not care enough about the EU to make it worth their while to be eurosceptic. Parties constantly shift policies in order to win votes. The “market” for votes is like any other – there is a dynamic relationship between supply and demand.
My point is not that voters could easily elect eurosceptic governments overnight. Indeed, in most EU countries, it would take a longer process of euroscepticisation (nice new word?) over time to achieve that result.
Voters choose a party on a basket of issues that they deem important. Probably no single voter in history has voted for a party that offered only policies with which that voter agreed. In other words, I do not for a moment contest the claim that many eurosceptic voters vote for pro-EU parties. I am sure that this is correct. My point is just that they don’t disagree strongly enough with the parties’ views on the EU to make these views electorally relevant. As far as I am aware, no party in history has won an election on the single issue of EU membership, or even on a platform that put the question of EU membership in the top rank of its priorities.
In the end, the people have spoken. If they do not elect eurosceptic parties, then eurosceptic parties are not close enough to the people’s concerns. It’s a little like football. I’m an Arsenal fan. My club plays absolutely beautiful football. But since 2005, the club has won no trophies. In the end, in a competition, you can be judged only on results. In 100 years, no one looking through the history books will say, “between 2005 and 2010, Arsenal played beautiful football”. They will say, “between 2005 and 2010, Arsenal won no trophies”.
Similarly, we can say all we want now about the reasons for the way voters vote in Europe. But history will show that European voters did not support eurosceptic parties (at least until 2010!). And there are some out there, even in the most surprising countries.
Nicolas
Each nation takes its own view on how “democracy” will work for them. Some offer referendums on specific topics (eg Ireland); some use referendums as an occasional option (eg France); some rarely use them, unless there is an external requirement (eg the UK and entry into what is now the EU). Nations in this latter category (eg the UK) tend to rely on the fact that government is elected to act on behalf of the people: and it does so. eg I wonder what might have been the outcome of a referendum on entry into the Iraq war?
Mr Cameron has promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, whether the Treaty isin force or not. We can debate precisely what effect this could have but it appears to be his party’s political commitment. So, if you vote for his party, then you might expect the stated policy to be acted upon. But then, who trusts a politician?
Insideur and French Derek :
I think we are discussing different things. My comment was in reply to the original post that said that eurosceptic’s communication strategy or propaganda had failed to convince the population. I disagree with this. I think it has been quite effective in general terms. At least it is not worse than the pro-EU propaganda which has failed to convince a big part of the public opinion. But as I said before public opinion is not very important in the EU debate what matters are the elites and I think eurosceptics should target these groups instead of the general public if they want to further their goals more efficiently.