So runs the argument of increasingly prominent anti-EU Tory, Daniel Hannan MEP – still advocating a UK referendum despite the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
This is, of course, very true. Since the 1975 referendum on EEC membership, the British people haven’t had their chance to vote on being part of the EU system.
But when was the vote on constitutional monarchy, an established Church, Cabinet government, a two-chamber parliament, parliamentary sovereignty, a supreme court, the first past the post voting system, our membership of NATO, the UN, the WTO, etc. etc. etc.?
Why the insistence on a public say in one (really rather small) part of the UK’s governance, but not all the rest?
Why the complaints about the unelected European Commission, but no murmurs of dissent about how no one in the Cabinet is elected to that post? (Not to mention the UK civil service…)
Why the complaints about lack of democracy in the EU when the House of Lords remains unelected?
Why the complaints about EU law when most domestic legislation is passed via statutory instruments without so much as a glance from an elected official?
Why the hysteria over the largely powerless Presidency of the European Council, when Her Majesty the Queen retains the right to dissolve parliament and veto any legislation, whenever she likes?
How about, in other words, we put our own house in order before preaching about governmental perfection – and how about we stop with the double-standards? Want the people to have a say in how they’re governed? Fine. Let’s give them a say in all the other areas as well.
But don’t abuse referenda – generally reserved purely for extraordinary constitutional changes – for party political purposes. That way lies the destruction of the very system of government that the EU’s British opponents profess to hold so dear.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Totally agree, I was thinking no one under the age of 300 has had a chance to vote on the Union why isn’t Hannan bitching about that as well?!
November 4th, 2009 at 11:40 am
” no one under the age of 300 has had a chance to vote on the Union”
what about devolution? scotland, wales but not England. England is asked nothing.fuckwit.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:47 am
tally – watch the language, dear – you do yourself and your argument no favours when you get personal.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:54 am
It was a joy watching Hannan squirm on Newsnight last night, desperately trying *not* to admit that Cameron’s policy on Lisbon had been a completely hollow promise all along.
To be fair to Cammie, who would have expected Lisbon to get ratified by everyone before he got in? Still, makes you wonder how many other Conservative policies will prove too difficult by the time they get anywhere near power…
November 4th, 2009 at 11:56 am
These double standards would be impossible in a country where the media and leading politicians educate people instead of brainwashing them.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Nosemonkey
You’d do better to stay in the comfort zone of your own blog with your like-minded friends, because by posting on Daniel Hannan’s blog you definitely went to the wrong place to make your stupid and deliberately misleading comment.
I’ve no doubt that Daniel Hannan would agree that potentially all those historical developments should be open to review, and that in a modern direct democracy the people should not only be allowed to vote on whether, for example, they wanted their country to cease to be a constitutional monarchy, but they should also have the legal right to demand and get a vote on it.
Ralf Grahn
No “double standards” in Finland, then?
November 4th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Denis
a) Why is it misleading?
b) Why is it stupid? It’s a question, nothing more. And a simple one at that – why has the EU sparked thi concern for the people to have their say in the way they are governed when the people of Britain have *never* had such a say before?
c) What’s the point in only discussing issues relating to the national constitution with people who agree with us?
November 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“But don’t abuse referenda – generally reserved purely for extraordinary constitutional changes”
Erm, the argument is that the treaties when totted up are indeed an extraordinary constitutioonal change. Thus there should be a referendum.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Tim – when totted up, no doubt. That’s why we had the 1975 referendum. Or did you miss the bit in the (1957) Treaty of Rome about “ever-closer union”?
The concept of “ever-closer union” has been watered down considerably since then, however – and Lisbon (unless you deliberately misinterpret what it’s doing) is hardly a major shift in the way the EU works, except in as much as it, erm…, allows elected representatives in both the European and national parliaments a bit more say in things.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Denis Cooper,
Humans all over the world have a predilection for double standards, but the level of disinformation on European affairs in Britain is astounding well outside fringe groups.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Uh, I dunno, maybe because at the last general election, all the major parties promised us one ?
November 4th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
InfoholicUK – no, at the last general election, we were promised a referendum on the old EU constitution, not the Lisbon Treaty.
You may well deem it to be semantic quibbling, and feel that the various parties have misled the British people and/or used a loophole in the phrasing to renege on their promise – but strictly speaking they are not breaking the letter of that promise.
To explain a bit further:
The reason a referendum might have been necessary for the constitution was because it *replaced* all the existing EU treaties, thus also replacing the treaties to which the British people gave their assent in the 1975 referendum.
By contrast, the Lisbon Treaty only *amends* the existing EU treaties.
The effects may be very similar indeed, but legal terms this is a major distinction – one was a constitution (containing all the rules and regulations for the EU’s functioning), one is merely an amending treaty (changing various bits and pieces of how the EU functions).
This is why Labour were justified in not offering a referendum on Lisbon.
As for the Tories, Cameron only ever promised a referendum on Lisbon if he was in power before it had been ratified. He isn’t, and it has – therefore he’s not breaking his word.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
http://www.theparliament.com/no_cache/latestnews/news-article/newsarticle/klaus-pushed-eu-to-the-very-limit-says-pottering/
Hans-Gert Pottering, former President of the EU Parliament:
” … this is a treaty some of us have been fighting nine years for.”
Eh, “nine years”?
Surely not?
Isn’t this is a new and very different treaty, a treaty which no longer needed the British referendum promised for the previous treaty?
November 4th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Denis – see my previous comment.
Also, please note, he says “*A* treaty” – not “*THE* treaty”. The reason? Because the 2001 Treaty of Nice (c. nine years ago) left lots of loose ends. The constitution – and subsequently Lisbon – were both explicitly intended to tie up those loose ends.
(Of course, there are still plenty of issues left over from Nice that have yet to be sorted out (most importantly how the buget should be split following the 2004 enlargement – we’re still working on rules for an EU of 15 member states, not 27), so if anything Pottering is being overly optimistic. I don’t reckon we’ll be done for at least another five years – and that’ll probably require yet another treaty…)
November 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Nosemonkey,
I fully agree with you. We should have referenda about lots of policies. I`m glad you are becoming more democratic.You`ll find it at odds with our membrship of this EU project though.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Given the UK’s medieval “first past the post” electoral system, it is quite conceivable that the Tories could yet lose the next General election if the UKIP and the BNP could siphon off c. 20% of the vote that might otherwise go to the Tories. Thus Davis’ proposal is deeply dangerous for Dave – it is little short of a demand for a complete re-negotiation of UK EU membership – and a referendum to secure a mandate for same. Given popular (largely media induced) hostility to the EU, the absence of some kind of EU related referendum from the Tory Manifesto would make this a real danger.
But what happens if the EU responds with a flat NO – which I deeply hope it would do? What then? A referendum on withdrawal? Does Dave really want to go there? The Lisbon Treaty, for the first time, makes explicit provision for a member leaving. The Tories could simply be shown the door. And then Scotland might vote for independence to remain inside. And N. Ireland deeply destabilise. A truly “appalling vista” beckons in the context of impending Sterling and financial collapse.
The Boy Cameron is going to have to grow up. The UK can’t survive a Blair II.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Re: Lisbon referendum: It sort of depends on how similar you think the Lisbon treaty is to the constitution. Having read neither document, I can’t comment; however, lots of people seem to regard them as being very similar. That being so, we should have a referendum because it was a manifesto pledge. Otherwise, what’s the point of manifestos? Or elections, really? It reminds me of when Brown promised (prior to the 2001 election?) not to raise income tax; after the election, he increased national insurance. It sort of sucks, really. Please note, this is a criticism of UK politics, not EU.
As for other referenda: Elected Lords leads to career politicians, which is what the House of Commons is for; If the Queen actually did dissolve parliament, we’d be a republic in hours; I’m not entirely sure what the EU commission is for, so can’t really comment; and statutory instruments are the work of the Devil. But I can complain about them, and (bits of) the EU, at the same time. There’s no need to limit the targets of vitriol.
Frank @ 16: Conceivable, but it’s also conceivable that God will appear and appoint a chicken supreme ruler of the world. No opinion poll has (BNP/UKIP/Green) anywhere near that level of support; besides, whilst UKIP takes votes from the Tories (and Lib Dems, apparently), the BNP support base is a lot more evenly split – perhaps even leaning more Labour-ward.
Your argument that hostility to the EU is “largely media induced” is one trotted out at regular intervals, and has no evidence to support it (that I’ve seen, at least). And why an independent Scotland would be a disaster, I’m not entirely clear on; similarly, power sharing in NI has little, if anything, to do with EU governance.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Stuart – I’ve read both. They are indeed extremely similar – especially in their effect on how the EU works.
BUT – and this is a legally vital but – one is very much a constitution (replacing all treaties), whereas one is merely making amendments to existing treaties. The promise was explicitly for a referendum on the constituional treaty; Lisbon is not a constitutional treaty.
You may well feel that this amounts to a breach of the spirit of the referendum pledge – but it doesn’t breach the letter. Politicians are wily beasts, and should (if they’re any good) pay close attention to their precise wording. Want to hold them to account? Look for the get-outs in what they say. (On which point, I’m hoping to do something on Cameron’s speech from earlier today…)
On your points as to the other referenda – yes, you *can* campaign for them all at the same time. My point is that eurosceptics rarely (if ever) do. The obsession with *just* the EU when there are so many other unsatisfactory elements about the British governmental system is what confuses me.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Stuart – even a 5% UKIP vote could prevent the Tories getting an overall majority – depending on how other parties do. I think Scottish independence would be a good thing (for Scotland) but not perhaps what the Tories have in mind. the Northern Ireland peace process has been heavily influenced by the development of the EU and anything which disrupts the delicate balance of relationships between the UK/England/Scotland/Wales, Ireland, and N.I. could be deeply destabilising and result in the paramilitaries taking centre stage again. It is not in the interests of N.I. to have border controls, trade barriers, currency differences with either the UK or Ireland and anything which causes the UK and Ireland to drift apart also threatens to unravel the Peace Process.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
NM @ 18 – I agree that it doesn’t breach the letter of the pledge, which is why I compared it to the income tax/national insurance dodge; both are indeed literally, legally, correct. Both – if you want to be dramatic about it – devalue democracy, or at least politicians.
Frank @ 19 – Last poll I saw (from ukpollingreport – ICM) is at Con/Lab/LD 42/25/21, which leaves ‘others’ – including Plaid & the SNP – at 12%. It would take more than UKIP getting 5% (which would require more than doubling their 2005 votes) to materially effect the outcome of the next election. As for NI (which currently has a different currency to Ireland, afaik) – If you could give examples of how the existence of the EU has promoted peace, above and beyond what the UK and Ireland (and the US) has done, please do so. It’s not a subject I know much about.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Besides funding a lot of cross-border, border area, business and community development projects the EU has been instrumental in reducing British/Irish tensions and antagonism leading to the “equality of esteem” enshrined in the peace process itself and a very harmonious relationship between the two Sovereign Governments involved – because Ireland is now recognised as an equal member in the EU and not some former colony to be looked down on and patronised.
Northern Ireland is now a less “cold house” for nationalists because we are all part of a greater, if emergent polity. The CAP has been essential for Northern farmers and the regional and cohesion funds have helped develop some very poor areas economically and socially. Employments are no longer exclusively Protestant or Catholic and EU inspired equality legislation has reduced discrimination on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.
Most socially progressive legislation in the past 30 years, North and South, has been EU inspired which has resulted in a much greater convergence between the two polities on the island.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
“Stuart – I’ve read both. They are indeed extremely similar – especially in their effect on how the EU works.
BUT – and this is a legally vital but – one is very much a constitution (replacing all treaties), whereas one is merely making amendments to existing treaties.”
At which point I insist that you’ve passed over to the other side Clive. No, nothing to do with the EU. But you’ve become a member of the political classes youself. This is casuistry, the sort of shite that we expect from politicians but which the rest of us abhor.
Well done, I hope you’re being well paid.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Frank @ 21 (and apologies to everyone for going so far off-topic): This reminds me of arguments over whether the EU prevented World War 3 (and please, lets not go there!). I would only point out that neither the wikipedia page on the troubles, or the peace process, make any mention of the EU/EC, or of ‘Europe’ as a political entity at all. And as wikipedia is the source of all knowledge, I’m sticking with my original conjecture.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Tim – Another perfect illustration of someone seeing what they *think* is there, rather than what is *actually* there. I’m not saying I approve, I’m just saying that this is truth of the matter.
Come on – politicians spend their entire lives ensuring that what they say is very, very carefully phrased. It’s their job.
And in any case, we all know politicians can rarely be trusted to stick to promises that they have explicitly made. Does anyone really expect a politician to stick to a promise that he *hasn’t* made?
If you believed that the promise was cast-iron, that was no doubt their intention. But you should have been paying more attention. Any politician worth his salt has always got a get-out plan.
None of this is indicative of me joining the political classes, Tim – merely that I am careful to see what’s actually being promised.
(Which is, by the by, why I’m beginning to backtrack on my initial negative reaction to Cameron’s EU policy speech this afternoon, having started to look at it in more detail. On which more, possibly, tomorrow…)
November 5th, 2009 at 12:20 am
“Why the complaints about the unelected European Commission, but no murmurs of dissent about how no one in the Cabinet is elected to that post? (Not to mention the UK civil service…)”
More importantly, why complaints about an unelected commission when the alternative would be an elected commission, much like governments are elected in countries, when we all know this is the last thing Dan Hannan & Co. wants. Hypocrisy much?
(I’m not opposed to an elected commission)
November 5th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Anton – One reason why the Commission is not elected is that individual Commissioners are there to act on behalf of the whole community: they are specifically not representatives. Thus, we have had over many years complaints that X or Y Commissioner has “gone native” when they did the EU job to which they were appointed – even to the extent that their own nation’s interests might not be best served (at least according to the media).
November 5th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Nosemonkey,
Why bracket all the EUroscetics as hypocritical? Many of us want more localism ,elected judiciary and police chiefs and referenda on sovereignty issues. We cant see how the EU is progressing democracy being the big unwieldy project it is. And how there is a lot of deviuosness surrounding it.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Robin – I don’t intend to suggest that all eurosceptics are hypocritical. Indeed, I know that many of them are also dissatisfied with the ways in which this country is run.
This was aimed fairly squarely at Hannan and other eurosceptics who seem to only get upset about the lack of referenda when it comes to EU affairs – and, in the process, appear to have little idea of or concern about just how shoddy Britain’s own set-up is.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Hannan’s an odd target there. He’s just published a book arfuing for Swiss style referenda on just about everything.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Nosemonkey,
Do you think that a lot of EUrophiles are hypocritical ?
Do you think that this EU project has progressed without any subterfuge , double dealing, obfuscation and anti democratic actions ?
November 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Robin – Europhiles being hypocritical? No, not especially. Deluded, perhaps (inasmuch as most true europhiles are utopians – which is why I’m not a europhile), but not hypocritical that I can think of.
Subterfuge, double-dealing, obfuscation and anti-democratic actions? Yes, there’s certainly been a bit of that. The same thing goes for the creation of pretty much every political system / entity in the history of the world.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Tim – sorry, didn’t spot your comment. Wasn’t aware Hannan was a full-on direct-democracy fanatic until his resignation. Had I been, I’d have had even less respect for the man.
But unless *all* proponents of EU referenda also want to go the Switzerland route, the point still stands for the rest of them.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Pardon my ignorance on UK Constitutional Law, but has it not been the tradition in the UK for hundreds of years that the Parliament is effectively Sovereign – despite some residual powers vested in the Queen – and that any referendum held is t best advisory? As far as I Know, the only UK wide referendum EVER held was on EC membership in 1975. There have been a few others held at local or regional level on N.I., devolution or local issues, but constitutionally, the UK is about as far away from being a direct (as opposed to a parliamentary) democracy as it is possible to be.
So why all this criticism for the EU lacking direct democracy? Is the Queen or the PM directly elected? Is the House of Lords? Is Whitehall? If the EU wants to increase the level of direct democracy the UK is the very worst example it could look to. By all means campaign for the UK to be more like Switzerland, but what has that got to do with the EU? And why is it a criticism of the EU that it is not more like Switzerland – especially when that criticism seems to come primarily from the UK?
The EU is primarily a Union of Member States – which pools some Sovereignty, but leaves the internal constitutional arrangements of its members intact as an issue for those members themselves. Thus Ireland has referenda on EU Treaties whilst few other states do. It is none of our business to tell those other members states they lack democracy because they don’t have the same traditions and constitutional arrangements as we have in Ireland.
Why on earth so many Brits feel thy have a special mission and a special position to lecture the EU on democracy is beyond me. If anything, the EU is still, even post Lisbon, too democratic because it requires Unanimity on so many issues, and very large (weighted) majorities on so many more. It is very easy for a small member such as Irealdn or the Czech President to put a spoke in the works – to the point where the EU is nothing like as effective in world affairs as its size would otherwise warrant. Thus we are led by the nose by the US on Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Missile Defense, even relations with Russia. Time to grow up guys, its a big (globalising) world out there – largely run by global corporate interests – and little Englander political attitudes to decision making simply holds everyone else back in addressing the issues such a sClimate Change facing us all.
The British Empire isn’t coming back any time soon, and those Eurosceptics who dream of running the world in partnership with the US need to be put back into their Clubs and Public School associations. They have nothing positve to contribute to the World or the EU, (and in my view to the UK, but then, that is none of my business).
November 8th, 2009 at 11:21 am
“Why on earth so many Brits feel thy (sic) have a special mission and a special position to lecture the EU on democracy is beyond me.”
A straw man argument. But then, you can’t win a proper argument so that will always be the best you can do.
K te joden hdp, va a kagar en cien putas. Y, pa k te acuerdes de mi, aqui un aviso – ningún traidor se escapará a la justicia.
From, a ‘Little Englander’ who understands ‘Europe’ better than you do.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I like the way that some EUrophiles dont like direct democracy like referenda because they feel that a majority will hold tyranny over a minority, but say that Ireland or Czech Republic shouldn`t hold back the Lisbon Treaty because the majority of the EU was in favour of it (debateable).
Thats two faced .
November 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
We shall – how is it a straw man argument? It’s absolutely relevant to the point of the post. And from where do you get the impression that Frank can never win a “proper” argument, exactly?
Robin – No, it’s not two-faced. It’s simply an offshoot of the fact that democracy is a complex beast, and that getting the right balance is very tricky indeed. If it was as simple as you seem to be trying to make out, then there would have been no point in the tens of thousands of books of political theory that have been written over the centuries on this very issue of the best form of government. Democracy is not as simple as “the majority decides”, nor has it ever been.
The difficulty the EU faces is just how much democracy is the right amount. The point that has been raised in this post (and the comments) is that Britain really hasn’t got much more democracy than the EU (and arguably has less).
Specifically on referenda, they may sound like a good way to ensure that the will of the people is paramount – but it’s rarely as simple as that.
I’m against them because they are hugely deceptive (they’re usually supposed to be about a single issue, but are normally used for countless others), but there are plenty of other criticisms. And for a prime example of why I think they should only ever have a limited role in government, just take a look at California.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Nosemonkey,
Dangerous territory to say that the EU has to decide how much democracy is to be allowed. Naturally a EUrosceptic like me will assume that they will allow as much as it suits the colleagues plans for their project.
The criticisms of referenda can be turnesd around, such as Hitlers use of them. If the Great Dictator had held referenda about his war aims and genocide, then the outcome would have been different.
I`m also amazed at this contempt for populism in democracies.After all you EUrophiles say the EU is popular, and you cite the fact that the people vote for the three main parties that are pro EU . Now are the people stupid and thus democracy should be curtailed and those that think they know better rule over us, or is it better to get as much democracy as possible ?
And what some EUrophiles said about Ireland was hypocritical .I`m afraid it does not show the project up in a good light.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Robin – Who is “they”? The people who decide how much power the EU has and how it organises that power are the members of the governments of the member states – all of whom retain vetoes on such matters. (Yes, even after Lisbon.) It’s nothing to do with some shadowy cabal of “colleagues”, “eurocrats” or anything else – it’s down to the (elected) governments, and no one else.
As for populism – I’m sure I’ve tried to explain this to you before, but populism and popular are not the same thing.
You ask “are the people stupid and thus democracy should be curtailed and those that think they know better rule over us, or is it better to get as much democracy as possible?” – this is the very question that has been debated by political philosophers since before the time of Plato. No one has the answer to this question.
Finally, “And what some EUrophiles said about Ireland was hypocritical .I`m afraid it does not show the project up in a good light.” – I have absolutely no idea what you mean here, but some? So now you agree that the actions of a small minority of supporters of a particular political viewpoint can discredit all the rest? I could have sworn that you’ve berated me in the past for suggesting precisely the same thing about the more conspiracy-prone eurosceptics.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Nosemonkey,
I did say some, whether they are indicative of most EUrohiles I dont know. Perhaps you could enlighten us here and tell us if you agree with them.
As for the question that has no answer,clearly different people have different answers . You for one have No Referenda within your answer to it , and others seem very wary of the most democratic means because it takes power away from the ones they want to hold power.
We are getting into semantics about populism and popular. To me they are nearly the same ie popular policies that the majority want.Unfortunately anybody who espouses such policies is denounced as though he is advocating something evil, when most of the time it is because he is putting forward policies that self elected arbitraters of morals dont agree with.It`s another way of diluting democracy rather than trying to win over a majority of voters.
“They” are the political establishment, journalists and civil servants who are creating and mantaining this project . They do so by mainly democratic means, but very often not. Such an example is the Constitution/Lisbon treaty .
November 8th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Robin – “Perhaps you could enlighten us here and tell us if you agree with them.”
If you tell me what you’re referring to, then by all means.
“We are getting into semantics about populism and popular”
No we’re not – we’re getting into definitions:
populist, adj., Appealing to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people
popular, adj., Originating among the people
Necessarily over-simplified here, to avoid quoting huge chunks of dictionary, but that’s basically it. Populist is top-down, trying to present something in such a way as to get the people on side. Popular is bottom-up, a belief naturally supported by the people themselves. Similar, certainly, but the distinction is an important one.
I have no problem with popular politics; I do have a problem with populist politics – because the latter generally imply a certain degree of deception to trick the people into supporting them, as well as a degree of pandering to the baser instincts of the people.
I object to populist approaches in politics whether I agree with the aims or not – and have attacked populist nonsense emanating from the pro- as well as anti-EU side – if your policies and ideals are good enough, there should be no need for deception.
The trouble is, of course, that the anti-EU side in Britain has been so successful in poisoning the debate that it’s practically impossible to discuss the EU in the UK in entirely straight terms – something I was complaining about in relation to the pro-EU Constitution movement in the run-up to the Spanish referendum nearly five years ago.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Nosemonkey,
Surely you dont think that EUrosceptics have poisoned the debate but EUrophiles have been nothing but truthful. What about the “little Englander” insults ,the “Youth is on our side “, “Intellectuals support us”, the “EU is favoured by the ABC classes” ? What about the Glittering Generalities trotted out regularly ?
Newspaper editors complain that the EU debate gets one sided on their letters pages because EUrophiles dont (or cannot) defend the project. Look at the subterfuge that goes on nearly all the time about the EU and its effect on the UK and how to get its laws enacted in the UK .Look how leading EUrophile politicians dont like to debate about it.
Best of all, look how we didn`t have a referendum as promised – and the specious excuses not to hold one.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
No, Robin. I don’t think the pro-EU side only tells the truth. Read the post linked to in my last comment.
It’s very hard to have a constructive discussion if you don’t pay attention to what the other person’s saying.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I can give a qualified apology Nosemonkey . My computer is rubbish and I am rubbish on it so I dont like to shift pages and possibly lose where I was (or I`m just lazy )
Your posts though, are a bit like a newspaper headline ” EUrosceptics Fiddle The Debate ” and then a small footnote “and Europhiles do as well”.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
“No one under the age of 52 has had the chance to vote on the EU” | Nosemonkey’s EUtopia
My apologies for intruding in what seems to be largely an intra-UK debate. We had some similar arguments used by the NO campaign in Ireland, and they ended up losing that argument by a 2:1 margin in a popular referendum.
Their chief argument was that France and the Netherlands had had referenda on a proposed new constitution that were defeated. That is the ONLY time an EU related referendum in ANY EU member (other than the first votes on Nice and Lisbon in Ireland) that were defeated. They always forget that there were identical referenda in Spain and Luxembourg with YES majorities so large that they swamped the small no majorities in France and the Netherlands. In the meantime Sarkozy has been elected on an explicit promise to ratify Lisbon, but French democracy is only good enough for these Eurosceptics when it supports the result they want.
By all means have internal debates about the lack of democracy within the UK. But the EU is functioning exactly as the democratically elected Governments of its member states have decided it should. It is making decisions (ratified by the Commission, Council and Parliament) that member states have given it the authority to make.
(The fact that it then suits some of those members state Governments to “blame” the EU for decisions they have authorised it to make – to draw whatever political heat which arises from themselves is a different matter entirely, and speaks more to the level of leadership and political integrity of leaders within the member states – than it says about the EU.)
The EU isn’t governed by the UK, but by its 27 Member states (and directly elected Parliament). It is not a criticism of the EU to say its doesn’t always do what Brits want. Most people are mature enough to realise that a Union of so many member states can only do what the vast majority of its members states want it to do – and cannot follow the dictates of any one member, whatever its imperial pretensions.
I repeat, if the UK wants to leave the EU, it is welcome to do so, and the Lisbon Treaty, for the first time, makes explicit provision for a member state to do so. (I doubt many other member states – other than Ireland – will shed too many tears if they do decide to leave).
I wouldn’t be surprised if a UK decision to leave would precipitate a Scottish decision to leave the UK and remain within the EU. I would certainly expect the situation in Northern Ireland to totally destabilise again if the UK did decide to leave. But all these issues are internal issues for the UK to resolve according to its own constitutional provisions.
The rest of the EU is just tired of the whingeing Poms and wish they would make up their minds one way or the other. As the famous “Yes Prime Minister” episode made clear, it seems the UK only joined the EU in order to try and destroy it. But the EU can function very well (and arguably much better) without the UK, and so it may be best, from almost all points of view, for the UK to leave.
(I say this as an Irishman who would very much like the UK to remain in the EU because the UK leaving would destabilise N.I., severely disrupt our trading relationships with the UK, and probably result in a deepening of cross-border divisions with passport controls and increased violence generated by the Border).
November 9th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Robin – the reason I focus more on eurosceptic distortions is because these are more prevalent, and have utterly distorted the debate to the extent that even more pro-EU-leaning news organisations have started to accept them. They’ve added to the general ignorance that prevents honest debate.
Take this article in yesterday’s Observer (usually more or less pro-EU) as a prime example – it’s a piece attacking the EU for something that the EU had nothing to do with (a ruling by the Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights, reported as “the EU’s manic drive to standardise behaviour and attitudes”).
This European Court of Human Rights = an EU institution nonsense started in the eurosceptic press – initially as misleadingly-phrased pieces, designed to smear the EU (“European Court rules…” is usually taken by readers to mean “EU court” – and the eurosceptic press knows this). Now it’s got to the stage that it is explicitly being referred to as an EU institution – something that is plain wrong.
When pro-EU voices distort the debate, however, they are usually (though not always, I’ll freely admit) guilty of little more than oversimplification – their interpretation can be disputed (notably the perennial claim that the EU has had some role in maintaining peace in Europe), but can rarely be categorically ruled as wrong. Anti-EU claims, on the other hand, can far more regularly be proved to be factually inaccurate, rather than just a matter of opinion.
Plus, of course, it was anti-EU distortions that originally turned me pro-EU – they were one of the primary reasons I started the blog in the first place, so it’s only natural that I still focus more on them.
Frank – I agree with pretty much all of that.
I sometimes wonder if it might do the UK some good to leave the EU. Give it five years, we’d be pleading to be let back in – and the anti-EU crowd would finally be shown to have been basing their projections of a glorious non-EU future on little more than ideological faith. The only trouble is, as you note, just what damage would be wrought in the meantime…
November 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Nosemonkey – There are Eurosceptics in every EU member state – especially in the new ex-Communist member states in the east – but in most member states Euroscepticism is limited to extreme right (and left) revanchist, nationalist, chauvinist, religious fundamentalist, and climate change and science denying extremes.
In Ireland the NO campaign was made up of extreme Republicans (Sinn Fein), fundamentalist Catholics who condemned their own Bishops (COIR), US funded neo conservatives (Libertas) Irish neutrality activists (PANA) and traditional extreme left-wingers (Socialist Party) and Nationalists (National Platform) all of which have, in the past, opposed our membership from before we ever joined.
Together these groups generate c. 10% of the vote in General elections (which under our proportional representation system gives them a few seats in Parliament). However EU membership is supported by 70%+ of the population as a whole.
Where the UK is unique, it seems to me, is that such Eurosceptic attitudes reach up right into the elite in British society, have control of many powerful media outlets, and have generally managed to dominate popular debate. It seems almost as if (to an outside observer) that the UK elite resent losing much of their power and influence to the EU and are not above sabotaging their own country in the hope of getting it back.
Much of their discourse about the EU is laughably misinformed, not even worthy of serious engagement, and quite frankly racist and insulting to the rest of Europe. If they do get their way and pull the UK out, it will not just be a single De Gaulle who will say Non to any attempt at re-entry in the future. England will become just a small off-shore island off the northwest of Europe – with most of its retired and mobile population moving to the EU to live in any case.
Perhaps the reason only the Eurosceptics get heard in the UK is that so many of the Europhiles have already moved to Spain and France and other EU countries to avail of their better health services, standards of living, quality of life and climate. They are famous for still wanting their fish and chips and warm beers and not really adapting to the local language and culture, but I have never heard them say a bad word against the EU. Their only gripe is that Sterling is losing so much value against the Euro – as is the UK within the EU.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Frank Schnittger,
I broadly agree with what you say. It is astounding for an outsider that Britain has joined something akin to a European cooperative, and only keeps griping about what others do, never even thinking about what it could or should contribute.
This attitude, as you correctly point out, includes powerful media and political elites, who behave more or less like the political equivalent of football hooligans. In addition, they constantly picture themselves as victims of some horrible conspiracy.
I really think that Europe would be better off with the UK out. I am less sure about Britain, although five years would probably be too short a time to change opinions; think decades, Nosemonkey.
If Britain is constitutionally incapable of acting constructively, why can’t the UK political parties jointly decide to arrange the In or Out referendum to settle the matter for a few decades at least?
November 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Thanks Ralf. To be constructive about this – a referendum proposing a 10 year “suspension” of UK membership, with the option of return following another referendum in 10 year time might avert the prospect of a permanent schism. (This would probably require a new Treaty as suspension of membership is not provided for in Lisbon, but would be a generous response by the EU to a genuine problem of popular and elite disaffection in the UK).
I actually have a sneaking suspicious that when actually faced with the prospect of leaving the EU with all the possible repercussion’s for UK Unity and integrity, a referendum to leave might not actually be carried, despite all current opinion poll evidence to the contrary.
The UK elite strategy, as I read it, is not actually to leave the EU, but an attempt to hobble it to being no more than the original free-trade area. But that is not what every other EU member has signed up for, and thus the endemic conflict between the EU and the UK.
The one thing I would not grant the UK is all the benefits of the EU, and none of the responsibilities. If they choose to vote to go out, then they are out. No free trade. No political influence. No border free travel or rights of residence or to work for UK citizens in the EU. No say in how the EU develops in the future. No derogation from UN Treaties on Climate Change, Human Rights, and disarmament.
The UK will become a pariah state as far as the rest of the EU is concerned. Associate status – such as that given to Switzerland or EFTA states should not be on offer. A country which breaks a solemn Treaty with all other Member states should not be allowed to benefit from that decision.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Frank, here I disagree with you in part. Renewed EFTA membership and “fax democracy” through the European Economic Area (EEA), or a Swiss model of bilateral agreements with a “guillotine clause” would preserve the advantages of free trade (the internal market) both ways, but it would eliminate British sabotage within the EU and remove the (alleged) causes of the English toxic atmosphere.
Scotland might opt for the more progressive union, but that is their choice.
Every organisation needs constructive and contributing members; the EU is no exception. Until England, by a broad supportive majority, accepts its responsibility, it is in the wrong club.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Ralf – EFTA/EEA – although largely passive bodies – are distinct from the EU and its internal market. There is no more reason why the EU should give preferential trade agreements to Switzerland than it should to China, except where these agreements are mutually beneficial. However there is also no reason why the EU, for its own reasons, (and having regard to existing international Treaties on Tariffs on Trade etc.) shouldn’t take actions which favour its own members over those who are outside the Union. For example if EU companies are subject to much stricter requirements for employee rights, environmental protection, and consumer standards, there is no reason why they should not also benefit from a preferential market access or supports regime within the EU. Thus the continuation of “a level playing field” for UK companies within the EU should not be taken for granted post a UK exit from the Union.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Frank, I admit that you have a point if the UK liberates itself to practice so called social dumping (which seems to be the main Tory aim). On the other hand, one should perhaps weigh in the EEA budget contributions and the lack of representation in the institutions (Council, Commission, European Parliament).
Do you see that Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway on the one hand, Switzerland on the other hand, have unfair advantages?
By the way, formally the English language would be upheld mainly through the EU membership of Ireland, if the UK makes the “grand opt-out”.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Nosemonkey,
The problem you outline is is seen as a problem for EUrophile you and then a problem for EUrosceptic me. I know that the ECHR is seperate to the EU (but linked stronly) and the EUs own court is the ECJ. Would I be right in saying that the colleagues of the project actually like confusion about the respective responsibilies of EU and allied institutions – until we get EUrosceptically confused.
Lately it seems the press have been more EUrosceptic, but not too long ago the EUrosceptic side of the argument was dismissed and ridiculed before any consideration was given to the issues raised. Have we reached the stage pointed out by Ghandi -”first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they argue with you, then you`ve won “.? It seems that the first two hurdles have been passed and EUrophiles cannot rely on Glittering Generalities and tired old cliches ,it only remains to show the status quo can be changed.
I`ve admitted to you that some EUrosceptic arguments have been dubious but I wont counter them because of the deviousness of EUrophiles in other areas.Fairs fair there isn`t it ?
Frank Shnittger,
Welcome to the debate which by it`s very nature should have input from people outside the UK. In a dichotermous way though, one of your posts points out the problem. We dont want 26 other countries ruling Britian even if we have a say in it. As an Irishman I`m sure you`ll see the point in that.
The elite of Britian was previously enthusiatic about the EU project, but as you point out, some nowrealise it was not the way that they could take the reins and rule the world and be on equal terms with the USA and USSR. Now scales fall from their eyes and they know they are outclassed by all the other nationalities functionaries.
You mention a racist aspect but then printed a stereotype of a Brit abroad. I know they exist but is that all you see ?
If we do leave the EU and there is the breakup of the UK,that would not be the end of the world.Pre 1922 many thought Ireland leaving the UK was a catastrophe. No offence but a couple of decades later we had our “finest hour”.If the break up happens the Ulster Unionists may see a better future in a united Ireland (Perhaps Ireland can rejoin the Commonwealth so they can swear loyalty to the Queen but pay their taxes and accept rule rom Dublin – EU excepted from this scenario of course.Whatever it takes to ease them in )
Just think. Without the UK there would be no whinging Poms.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Robin – “Without the UK there would be no whinging Poms.” As you know that is an Aussie term of endearment and applies principally to the English as opposed to the Scots/Welsh/Irish as far as I am aware… So without the UK the Poms would have even more to whinge about!
Yes I know the fish&chips&warm beer is a stereotype which I used to illustrate the famous English (British?) inability/unwillingness to adapt to local conditions but noted that even those who might seem to conform to that stereotype is some ways seem to have no problems with the EU when living abroad.
Some of my best friends are English and I wish them no ill whatsoever. English Euroscepticism seems to me to be a profoundly sad derogation from the outstanding British achievements of previous centuries and the (sometimes over-) confidence which this created.
Ireland has willingly pooled some of its Sovereignty with other EU members because we can see the logic of dealing with common problems in a common way. We must remember that all politics now takes place in the context of a globalising economy dominated by (mostly US) global corporations, and whatever chance the EU has of regulating them in the name of the common good, a small country like Ireland has almost none.
The issues of energy, food, and physical security are common to us all, as are the issues raised by peak oil and global warming. Most of the more progressive social and employment legislation in Ireland has been EU inspired, and the economies of scale require access to common markets with level playing pitch rules. Even the US has now been forced to adopt a more collective, multilateral, and cooperative mode compared to the “we’ll show ‘em” Bush Blair years.
So no, I have no problem at all pooling some Sovereignty and think there are many things best handled at an EU level. That is the widely held view in Ireland, even though our inability to devalue our currency in response to the current economic crisis makes life even more difficult for us just at the moment.
The bottom line is that the Celtic Tiger (for all its faults) simply wouldn’t have happened without the EU, and contrary to myth, EU subsidies were just a minor factor in this. Access to markets, the social reforms engendered by EU membership, good industrial policies, a good industrial relations system, a good educational system and low corporate tax rates were all more important factors in that development.
Even now, our catastrophic economic problems were largely of our own making – a failure to regulate the banks, promotion of a property bubble, runaway inflation, and very poor property taxation policies – were far more at fault than the Euro or economic policies emanating from the EU.
So if anything, Brussels rule is more popular in Ireland than Dublin rule in Ireland at the moment, and given our proud history of seeking independence, that takes some doing. Yes, som things are always managed/regulated from closer to home, and getting that balance right can be difficult. But if the Brits could get over their fixation with “straight bananas” and really studied the detail of what was happening, they might find Brussels a lot more effective than Whitehall. (Of course it is in the interests of Whitehall to maintain an industry claiming precisely the opposite and appealing to British Nationalism to get a free pass for their own idiocies).
If I recall correctly, the “Brussels Bureacuracy” is smaller than Birmingham City Council. Although that may not be quite comparing like with like, the Brussels Bureaucracy is in fact remarkably small for it to have such a powerful )(positive or negative. depending on your point of view) influence on the Governance of 27 meber states.
No, I not looking for a eurojob, nor EUphoric at a EUtopia, but I do remember the alternative: rampant nationalism throughout Europe leading to two World Wars and a small insular, provincial, backward, inward looking, poverty stricken, priest ridden, class ridden, child abusing, sexist, chauvinist, sectarian and strife ridden land…
The EU hasn’t been sole responsible for changing all of that, but it has been the largest single factor – and one of the truly great political projects in the history of mankind. We will only truly appreciate it when it is no more.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Frank Schnittger,
Without the UK the Poms will have les to whinge about, because they wouldn`t be sending money to those regions, and those regions can rule and tax themselves .
I`m a firm beleiver in giving any region or people independence if they want it, whether it be Scotland, , London , Cornwall (a county in Engaland ) or the Forest of Dean ( an area)or Brittany (not in my remit ).
Part amicably and then get on is far better than a forced union.
The fish and chips brigade probably dont take any interst in political matters and many people leave the UK for other areas of the world. Good luck to them althogh I would understand any country putting barriers to any immigration .
Ireland may have had its problems, and may have been as bad as you outlined up to the sixties, but I`m sure it would have grown up anyway .One thing to learn is always respect an Irish businessman . The EU may have helped your country but that is your country, and circumstances are different for us.
Our catastrophic economy is also mainly down to our establishments stupidity .But being in the EU and chucking much needed money into it definately doesn`t help .WE would pull out of the recession/depression sooner if we left the EU project .
(I like Obama`s take on this – he will beleive that Amerca is out of recession when people are back in jobs and have confidence to spend.Not just about statistics ).
The Brussels bureaucracy may be smaller than Birmingham`s but that is not the full picture. Civil servants in Birmingham (and London ,Dublin, Berlin Paris et al )take their orders from Brussels, not the other way round . I know that is a simplistic way of seeing it but that is the truth. Therefore Brussels bureaucracy is smaller because it delegates to the countries and the regions .So yes Whitehall is inefficient, but it is our inefficiency that we can rectify. Would you want London to overide Dublin on the grounds of efficiency ?
In place of fish and chip eaters why dnt we call them Beans ?