“So a bunch of perfidious Englishmen want
to leave Europe? Pfff! Talk to
someone who cares.”
Hey don’t be like that! You want to hear
this, you really do. Five minutes. That’s all I ask. You’ll be thanking me later,
getting in the next round. Mine’s a pint by the way (and not a demi-litre). OK. Good. So here goes. It’s
the story of a bloke. David Cameron – Dave to his friends – a Cameron who
doesn’t direct blockbuster movies and may soon no longer be directing a
blockbuster country. Now Dave gave a speech a few months ago to announce what he
delicately referred to as an “in-out” referendum. No, come back! It gets
better. (Or worse.)
by MP (Continued below the fold...)
by MP (Continued below the fold...)
So this referendum, Cameron pledged it because
of his fellow Brits’ apparently incurable Europe-fixation. They see it
everywhere. Not just far away, in the numberless committee rooms of faceless
Brussels eurocrats, but brazenly strutting around their own streets, bypassing
their Parliament, undermining their sovereignty, directly interfering in their
lives, imposing unnecessary red tape and absurd directives about straight bananas, demi-litres of beer and what have you, and now, with the euro crisis, going to hell in a handcart
and taking them down with it. Ah, these Euro-sceptic – or Euro-phobic – Brits!
No-one’s quite sure how many of them there are, but they sure are a noisy
crowd, with a thrusting, avowedly nationalistic political party to give them voice,
and a large representation among Cameron’s own Conservatives, including many
potential rivals. So Dave decided to write a speech,
wherein he said:
“Today,
public disillusionment with the EU is at an all-time high. People feel that the
EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to. Put simply, many ask
‘why can't we just have what we voted to join – a common market?’ People feel
that the EU is now heading for a level of political integration that is far
outside Britain's comfort zone. The result is that democratic consent for the
EU in Britain is now wafer-thin. That is why I am in favour of a referendum.”
It must have seemed like a smart move. After
all, what better way of shutting up your opponents and rivals than giving them
what they demand? Problem was, Cameron hadn’t
given them what they were demanding, to wit: a referendum now, not in five years’ time, after the
next election. Why not? (Aside from creating a dilemma for the leader of the
opposition Labour party, David - excuse me, Ed -Miliband, forced to say whether he too would offer
a referendum if elected.) Here’s what he said:
“It
is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put
the relationship right. The European Union that emerges from the eurozone
crisis is going to be a very different body. We need to allow some time for
that to happen – and help to shape the future of the European Union, so that
when the choice comes it will be a real one. A real choice between leaving or
being part of a new settlement in which Britain shapes and respects the rules
of the single market but is protected by fair safeguards, and free of the
spurious regulation which damages Europe's competitiveness (…) a settlement
which would be entirely in keeping with the mission for an updated European
Union I have described today. More flexible, more adaptable, more open – fit
for the challenges of the modern age.”
In other words, Cameron intends to
negotiate a new type of relationship with a new type of Europe, and let the
British people judge the result in a referendum. But why, one might ask, would the other
Europeans, often exasperated as they are by Britain’s perceived “blocking tactics”,
accept such a renegotiation (which would inevitably involve treaty change)?
Here’s Dave again:
“Just
as I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU so the EU should want
us to stay. For an EU without Britain, without one of Europe's strongest
powers, a country which in many ways invented the single market, and which
brings real heft to Europe's influence on the world stage, which plays by the
rules and which is a force for liberal economic reform would be a very
different kind of European Union. And it is hard to argue that the EU would not
be greatly diminished by Britain's departure.”
So the question is posed: should European
leaders agree to this as yet vague and uncertain renegotiation, which would presumably allow the British to “opt out” of much of the legislation binding
other member states whilst still having a say in its elaboration? Or should they tell the British to go
hang, following in this an illustrious antecedent, Charles de Gaulle, who
famously said “non” not once but twice to British entry to the Common Market of
the time?
What does Britain bring to Europe anyway, apart
from a hegemonic language? Are the Brits a positive force for change, or an obstacle to
it? Are they even really Europeans at
all? What would the continent look like without them? "Greatly diminished", or
greatly reinvigorated? Is Europe’s decline threatening to bring Britain down
with it, as British Eurosceptics argue, or might it be the other way round? The British
apparently want to decide their fate in Europe, but perhaps Europe should go
and decide it for them? Or at the very least, the debaters of the Friday Debate
Blog, whose readership as we know is powerful and open to suggestion …
There you have it. Now, go on, admit it, you really wanted
to hear that, didn’t you? And you really want to join the debate. Nothing less than the future of Europe lies in your hands ...
MP
No comments:
Post a Comment