Not sure I have the stomach for the 5 weeks of Parliamentary debate we’re about to embark on over the Lisbon treaty. But in today’s Guardian Simon Jenkins deploys a similar line of thought to me a few months back so I thought it worth paraphrasing my thoughts at the time.
With one or two notable exceptions both sides in this debate are intensely irritating and often wrong-headed. 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 The Europhobe agenda often boils down to an exaggerated fear of that same social democratic ‘creep’, a ridiculously outdated view on ‘Johnny foreigner’ and a geopolitical outlook still rooted in the 19th century.
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. Europhiles reject a referendum on the grounds that the context is disastrous – true but not a remotely credible argument against one. 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.
If they’re honest most people 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.
There should be a referendum because it’s the best shot we have at bringing legitimacy to our future relations with Europe. As Jenkins concludes:
With one or two notable exceptions both sides in this debate are intensely irritating and often wrong-headed. 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.
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. Europhiles reject a referendum on the grounds that the context is disastrous – true but not a remotely credible argument against one. 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.
If they’re honest most people 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.
There should be a referendum because it’s the best shot we have at bringing legitimacy to our future relations with Europe. As Jenkins concludes:
“Faced with a torrent of Euro-directives - some possibly virtuous, on free trade, energy saving, public safety, terrorism, civil rights, building regulations and conservation – [the public] will disregard them, as Mediterranean countries ignore or corrupt any public administration they do not like. I do not want this sort of Britain. It will happen not because voters were cheated of a promised referendum. Most will just shrug and say: "Typical politicians." It will happen because no attempt was made to persuade them of the worth of a substantial transfer of their democracy off-shore, as would have happened in a referendum campaign. This neglect was not oversight. It was because the government thought its persuasion might not work (despite the polls suggesting it might). It was the arrogance of political cowardice.”
3 Comments:
I agree with you, Liam (although I do wish you would do something about that light text colour in such a minuscule size because it meand ploughing through this is hard work).
The problem Labour and the Lib Dems have (and I suspect the majority of Tory MPs actually) is that with a xenophobic and eurosceptic media - particularly the Murdoch press - they do not think they will get across the arguments on Europe and would lose the referendum, irrespective of what campaigns and roadshows took place. Their mistake was in trying to outbid each other in saying they would have a referendum. It never bothered Thatcher to ignore the British public.
Whatever anyone says, that would cast a large shadow over continuing membership of the EU.
Now for myself, deeply distrustful of the EU and the US, I'm not sure I would be personally bothered, and if experience is anything to go by it would cause a massive schism in the Conservative Party. So, on apurely pragmatical level, I'm with you on this one... let's have a referendum.
Still small font Liam, but much, much more readable.
I tend to think that there should be a referendum but it should be on continued membership of the EU so as to settle the arguments for once and for all. We could argue until the cows come home (or rather go out again) about whether there should be one on the Lisbon Treaty - but the reality is that we and the other member states have little alternative but to say yes to the Treaty (or a revised version) or to allow an expanded EU to collapse without any effective governance. The Lisbon treaty has been argued over for years - and the chances of developing any other workable compromise are pretty much zero. The Europhobes are little more than wreckers - they have not come forward with any tangible proposals or model for an alternative framework - and when pushed they nearly always admit that they want out or Norwegian/Swiss status or similar (even though all the major parties remain officially commited to continued membership)
I agree with your comments about the lack of knowledge of European institutions - and my other pet hate is how the f word is continually used as the great demon - without appreciation that it can actually mean may differnt things - the USA, Germany and the old Soviet Union are all federations for example. Interestingly under section 13 of PPERA the Electoral Commission have a responsibility to promote awareness of the institutions of the EU - but perhaps they need to work on their own awreness of UK institutions before they start telling us all about the EU.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home