If the debate on the EU treaty tells us anything it’s that the more contentious an issue becomes the more difficult it gets to source impartial or balanced commentary on it. I’ve long suspected (perhaps hoped) that there’s a sizeable minority out there genuinely devoid of any preconceived opinions or prejudice and just looking for straightforward facts to help them make up their mind. But, with the press, pundits, politicians and bloggers all dividing along fairly predictable lines you do begin to wonder if there’s anyone left out there without a fully-formed opinion on it. Well there’s at least one – me.With one or two notable exceptions I find both sides in this debate intensely irritating. Too often the Europhile agenda seems built on nothing more substantial than an intense self-loathing, distrust of the US and a belief that further integration will help facilitate more social democracy than any Westminster election could deliver. The Europhobe agenda often boils down to an exaggerated fear of that same social democratic ‘creep’, a ridiculously outdated view on ‘Johnny foreigner’ and a geopolitical outlook still rooted in the 19th century. As with most issues the middle ground between these extremes probably represents the sensible way forward but navigating this path is all but impossible in the current climate.
Regardless of where they stand on the treaty itself, most commentators would accept this characterisation of where the national ‘debate’ is at the moment. The issue then becomes how suitable a background that is for a referendum and at that stage personal preferences start to come back into play. Not surprisingly Polly Toynbee was arguing at the start of the week that this would be a disastrous context for a referendum but that’s principally because she’s not likely to get the outcome she wants (and I'm sure she'd admit that). Eurosceptic calls for a referendum are (not always but usually) similarly insincere because they’re more than happy to exploit current electoral ignorance and have no real desire to better inform the electorate in case they change their mind.
So why am I lending my voice to the clamour for a referendum on the EU treaty? In short for the very reasons outlined above. Most people, if they’re honest, simply don’t know enough about Europe and the way it’s governed. If they discard everything they’ve ‘learned’ from their favoured politicians or their paper of choice (be it the Mail or the Guardian) and try to come to a judgement based solely on verifiable and independently sourced facts about EU governance they would most likely draw a blank – most of us have nothing but what we read in the MSM or the blogosphere. Whatever fears either side has about opening up this debate (and there are many valid ones, particularly on the ‘pro’ side) it’s been in effective hibernation for the last 50 years and until we remedy that our continued participation in the EU is based on a fiction. This should concern everybody, not least those who champion the EU as a force for good. We need to have the newspaper campaigns, the national road-shows (party-based and otherwise), the TV programmes, pamphlets and books – the whole issue of the part we play in Europe’s future needs to be thrust to the fore and resolved for good or for ill. Whatever degree of integration this country is to have with our European neighbours over the next few decades it has to be based on as wide a democratic mandate as we can possibly achieve and not the shifting fortunes of party politics. Anything less would be a fundamental breach of trust and it’s important to understand that this statement holds true regardless of political outcome (i.e. the breach is in not asking people their views, not the more common ‘surrendering sovereignty’ line favoured by the right) That our political culture over the last 50 years has contrived to load that debate massively in one direction (and so favour a certain outcome) is deeply regrettable but it most definitely isn’t an excuse for not having it.
The other reason why I’m convinced we need a referendum is because despite my best efforts I simply can’t construct an honourable and straightforward case against one. We can surely dismiss out of hand the reasoning that says we shouldn’t because the government would probably lose (if you think that’s honourable this blog isn’t for you). The only other angle I’ve come across is the representative democracy line – our elected representatives are in place to make these decisions and Labour’s position was clear at the 2005 election. But again, this line is so weak as to be non-existent – I’ve no intention of rehashing the ‘treaty vs. constitution’ arguments here but it’s mendacious in the extreme to suggest that the British people understood Labour’s election promise of a referendum to apply solely to a constitutional treaty and not an ordinary one.
So there you have it – we need a referendum because it’s by far the best way to bring legitimacy to our future relations with Europe, because the government promised one and because there’s no honourable reason why we shouldn’t. I’ve no idea how many of the people who support a referendum when polled do so for these reasons and how many do so for more base ones – I don’t really care. There are brave and honest people on both sides who advocate this position, not least the pro-EU Timothy Garton Ash a couple of weeks ago who concluded:
"Many of my pro-European friends will jump on me for saying this, but I must admit that I rather hanker after open combat. Sound the trumpets, stiffen the sinews, and let us march out from this boggy ground. At least it would make a change from Groundhog Day."A couple of final things – there are a few Labour or left-leaning bloggers out there for whom I have immense respect and always read with interest before I make my mind up on most issues. They’re more than capable of ignoring the partisan in favour of honest assessment so Bob, Tom and Bill – I stand ready to be corrected but until then…
And, lest anyone think I subscribe to that cliche about Europe having awful pop music - in the video box Belgian faux-punk Plastic Bertrand from 1978 and 'Ca Plane Pour Moi'.
Labels: Politics
18 Comments:
But its not complicated. Its simple . Do you , or do you not, wish to be ruled by foreigners ? The vast majority would say no...not out of spite of xenophobia but because your nation is like an extension of family and requires loyalty and a web of familiarity to function." We" decide between us what "we" will do. Europe does not contain a "we"..or to put it in a more pretentious way A demos .
It is clear that a democracy or real Parliament would be meaningless without the dialogue carried on at instinctive level by our country, and it quite hard enough to retain this balance in such an organic Parliamentary system as ours .( Not that the EU even tries but that’s another point) Were you to ask the same person if he wished to order the lives of Poles or Belgians he would scratch his head and say..“ None of my business”. You see simple .Oh , in case you were going to say you don’t complain about numerous other cedings of sovereignty amounting to so called international law ,. I do. Its an illusion and a lie . If we decide we will not live by it we do not . We attend no NWO court and please god let it stay that way
This wish to govern ourselves is obvious to everyone but the elite who try to disguise the truth . Its easy to see why nationalism was so feared inn the 20th century but that time is past. We can also see why some left wing elements prefer policies of one sort or another imposed on us from outside . I dislike it myself but the quality of the laws is not the point . France is a nice place , they might very well make lovely laws for us …I still , out of sentimental attachment prefer that they are in no such position. I wish to choose , I do not wish to be ordered around by someone to whom I owe nothing and have no “contract “with. The contract by which regime are exchanged without violence and war in a democracy.
WE entered this arrangement out of weakness in the 70s when the Continent was out-performing us . That is gone . We were not told about the Federal Dream and the surreptitious efforts to make that real , now we know . Europe dominated the world economy and was supposed to be a third block against Pact and the US. That is a distant and tiny little world now . The economic benefits are no longer there , which was the real reason Conservatives initially like the idea and the costs are huge . The Third way , like Norway or Switzerland is clear enough with bilateral arrangements being made with the EU block and freedom to deal with the rest of the world.
People with guilt on their hands act dumb . They say ..what do you mean , Maastricht was more wide ranging change to which the majority will say “ Yes I am just starting to realise what you have done without consulting me and I want my say , the fact that each step is now small will not defer my say forever so of not now then when,”.
The villains are terrified . I read Polly`s rant . She was smashing the glass with the hammer provided before the fire was upon her and going straight for the “ yawn …“Murdoch dominated press” , pathetic . I have read of this Murdoch dominated pres in the Guardian The Independent Private Eye and the New Statesman this week. ….thats real domination for you ? She claims the Federal dream is dead but we know very well it is not from the pronouncements of the rest of Europe . Les Lignes rouges were in place when the referendum was promised in the first place and have not substantially changed . the treaty is a Constitution because the Treaty of Rome is a Constitution . It was impossible for it not to be as it allot competence to national and supranational governments . Amendments therefore are inevitably of Constitutional Character. £5000 per household membership costs for which we get nothing good I can think of.
I sense the fear in the Euros they are caught because their entire strategy has been to rely on indolence and obfuscation . The palpable fear of the light tells you all you need to know about it . There is defence of this Constitution without a defence of the whole project , speaking in incomprehensible legalise is only a delaying tactic . Brown I , feel knows this , and may wish to be rid of the poisoned chalice about to spill out into view. His timidity will be his undoing again though,. He will continue to lie until we can quote his won words back at him,” There is nothing you can say now , that I will ever believe “
Crucial time ahead C, I shall enjoy watching Milliband slimy for the slimy worm he is as he was before the Scrutiny committee. I understand your first paragraph but you have to see through that. BTW I would get it on a sheer cost benefit and cock up count , but that’s not the real point .
,.
Cheers NM.
I'm no raging Europhobe but I guess the point is your entire position is an accident of timing and history - I know many people here in Scotland who would argue we've been 'ruled by foreigners' for c.300 years - would you agree. There's a bloke somewhere on the south coast who's trying to cede from England, do you lend him your support?
The point is you may well have clear lines that you can delineate at the moment but they're rooted in nothing other than preference and a particular take on history - they have moved before and will again.
So while I probably sit ultimately on the same side of the fence as you I'd have to disagree here and say no, it's actually quite complex and reducing it too 'rule by foreigners' make a travesty of the argument.
The point is you may well have clear lines that you can delineate at the moment but they're rooted in nothing other than preference and a particular take on history - they have moved before and will again.
The UK was Greater England and England has been stable for a 1000 years. It is not a "Particular take on history" except by a perverse wrong headedness. I `m not at all sure by the way that the facts of history are really the point , more the inherited culture especially linguistic and social.
Scotland was willing and supportive participant on the UK and did better out of it than England . In all the time of the Union their nationhood was not attacked and when they have chosen to leave they can. It is not clear even now that the majority wish to.
In fact vast funds are poured into so called regional areas from the EU to destabilise nations . EU funding and support has been behind the resurgence of the Welsh Language and the same is true in Cornwall now to a quite alarming extent. I have some interesting literature on it and it is an inevitable part of regional policy.
Perhaos C you are those of those who feels European. If so you are in a tiny minority. In general whn taking about mass man i feel it is redundant to say there are exceptions .
Your chap is an exception, perhaps yo are too. I doubt it though
/.....It occurs to me that actually we agree , its amatter of Language . If I say , the question is , fdo you , or do you not want tio be ruled by people who are not " British" then what I mean by foreigner is clear.
THose who feel someone from Watford is a foreign as someone from Warsaw can make their case
yeeeesh spelling ..sorry
Not sure it's just language NM - if the case rests on something as subjective as personal opinions on what constitutes 'foreign' then it's hardly a robust argument.
The 'do you want to be ruled by foreigners' question is almost meaningless for a couple of reasons:
(1)because most apolitical people would respond 'depends on the nature of the rule' and
(2) the premise is shaky because we elect members of the EU parliament - I can hear you laughing at that but that then becomes a case for electoral reform - it still undermines the 'foreigners' accusation.
I comes down to nationality in the end and it's a foregone conclusion anyway due to the Constitution being signed on Thursday.
The EU regions come into being, England is broken up and Scotland and Wales downgraded to regional status from 2010.
So, an academic debate here, methinks.
Perhaps James but the point remains - whether you're for or against more EU integration your outcome is only valid if it has some sort of democratic legitimacy...
Cassie
Like you I'm confused and conflicted but will read all about Lisbon this weekend and post on the referendum.
"you do begin to wonder if there’s anyone left out there without a fully-formed opinion on it. Well there’s at least one"
Make that two. I'm slowly in the process of formulating an opinion on it. It doesn't help much that (a) I'm not competent to read the thing and understand it myself, and (b) most of the 'analysis' in the media is partisan dross.
I'm generally pro-EU (although anti-euro), but this one does have me scratching my head a bit.
One quick point to lob in: the questions 'Is this treaty similar enough to the old constitution for Labour's referendum promise to carry over?' and 'Are the provisions of this treaty so significant as to make it referendum-worthy?' are quite distinct.
Thanks Skipper - look forward to your thoughts.
Likewise Tom - and quite agree on the distinct difference between those two questions.
On the first one there seem little doubt it's a 'yes' since nobody other than Brown & Milliband are suggesting otherwise. The second goes to the heart of the issue and as you point out very few of us are actually competent enough to read the thing and figure it out.
Hope you post on this too...
Here's what I wrote over at Skip's:
Referendums are nasty continental ideas which Britain should avoid. An issue with this one (as with them all) is what would the question be? A simple yes or no would hardly be satisfactory, there would need to be some details indicating to the negotiators which bits were good and which bad. Otherwise the entire thing would be an expensive waste of time and effort.
Even the LibDem "should we stay in at all" alternative is fraught with difficulties. There might be one answer were the question "should Britain leave the EU" and another were it "should Britain leave the EU and remain in the EEA where, like Norway for example, it would have to obey all the EU's rules but have no say in their formulation".
Still it will give the army of political pundits something with which to pad out their mainly tedious and largely unread columns or to fill the empty 24/7 news airtime for the next few months...
"It doesn't help much that (a) I'm not competent to read the thing and understand it myself, and (b) most of the 'analysis' in the media is partisan dross."
Intelligent and informed analysis of the treaty, can be found on www.EUReferendum.com - a site dedicated to Britains role in the EU and the wider world. Its author is Dr. Richard North, who co-wrote The Great Deception with the Sunday Telegraphs Chris Booker.
JO
Thanks Jo - appreciate the pointer.
Cr7l33 Very good blog! Thanks!
f8inVj actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Hello all!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home