Recycling old content again but it’s the only way to soothe my frustration at reading Steve Richards in this mornings Independent. Dizzy also tackles him here (even if he misunderstands his point a little) and is well worth a read. What follows is an edited version of a post I wrote last October.
With one or two exceptions I find both sides in the EU referendum 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 The Europhobe agenda often boils down to an exaggerated fear of that same social democratic ‘creep’, a ridiculously outdated view on ‘Johnny foreigner’ and a geopolitical outlook still rooted in the 19th century.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. Those that support the treaty will (correctly) point out that this is an awful background for a debate and that the last thing a referendum will do is better inform people – that becomes their ‘slippery’ excuse for opposing a plebiscite. Eurosceptic calls for a referendum are (not always but usually) similarly insincere because they’re more than happy to exploit that electoral ignorance and their enthusiasm is rooted in the certainty that they would win. In so far as he’s addressing these insincerities in both camps Steve is spot on. But his conclusion that a referendum is isn’t then needed is nonsense.
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 – that’s an aim both rabid ‘antis’ and ‘pros’ should be able to sign up to. 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.
With one or two exceptions I find both sides in the EU referendum 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. Those that support the treaty will (correctly) point out that this is an awful background for a debate and that the last thing a referendum will do is better inform people – that becomes their ‘slippery’ excuse for opposing a plebiscite. Eurosceptic calls for a referendum are (not always but usually) similarly insincere because they’re more than happy to exploit that electoral ignorance and their enthusiasm is rooted in the certainty that they would win. In so far as he’s addressing these insincerities in both camps Steve is spot on. But his conclusion that a referendum is isn’t then needed is nonsense.
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 – that’s an aim both rabid ‘antis’ and ‘pros’ should be able to sign up to. 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.
6 Comments:
The surrendering sovereignty argument is not confined to the right though, Liam. There is a substantial minority on the left who are concerned about the democratic deficit in the EU... we just don't pursue the 'johnny foreigner' line, that's all.
The middle ground is not right and opposition to the EU is not (only ) based on xenophobia it is to do with a Communitarian view of the nation and the possibilities of meaningful accountability where there is no natural demos. Also a sense that the zeitgeist have moved beyond the Eurovision song contest and into the global economy.
Those who believe in the European project, in the UK , and it a very old project , have adopted one predominant tactic to overcome what they see as the regressive forced of nationalism( which are not regressive as we can now admit ). They appeal to free trade modernity and the old fear of being isolated from Europe itself a very old foreign Policy objective. In order to buttress free trade in the EU they have required ever close Union always presented as “Completing the market”. This has involved consistent lying about their true objectives right from the inception of the ‘Common Market ‘ . They also, and quite implausibly, suggest that Germany would attack us all again left to its own devices ...etc. Hardly relevant now.
As we know what they really always intended was the abolition of the nation and the creation of the United states of Europe ....You think that’s far fetched , then read what they say in Europe little Englander!
I watched Milliband being torn to pieces by the Labour dominated scrutiny committee . I know a lot about this and excuse me for confining myself to the headlines .Like Iain dale and Dizzy I have only recently begun to feel we will have to leave. I suspect they will still sell us BMWs . I started off pro EU but this is a classic example of those you would despise , who did not trust this “Common Market” in a perhaps illogical way. Everything they said has been proved right.
Nick Clegg is caught being yesterdays future nd he is going to regret his shifty prevarication on the referendum.
Liam,
I think there is a difference between a Euro-sceptic and someone who is anti-EU.
I'm Euro-sceptic but I don't think we should leave the EU (not yet anyway). This is my opinion:
1. We should stay in the EU.
2. We should have a referendum on further integration.
3. We need to look at the problems we already face within the EU and fight the UK's cause.
It's not a case of leaving the EU, it's a case getting the best out of the organisation for the UK.
I can see the logic in Richards' argument, but the the position of honour ant trust that we place in our politicians is in grave danger if they insist on being elected on false promises.
Your desire for an open, well-researched and honest debate from both sides of the argument is certainly the right attitude. However, there is ample evidence on the 'anti-EU' side to support the argument that the EU is not fit for purpose (corruption, lack of democracy, a £13 billion annual bill for this country etc).
Whether we should try to change the EU or leave it is another matter.
Most people, if they’re honest, simply don’t know enough about Europe and the way it’s governed.
I do and it's not nice.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home