Written a lot about Europe in the past, I think I’ve found and tagged most of the old posts but have probably missed hundreds. One of the subjectst that comes up time and again is that, while I don’t like the EU as it currently stands, I like it more than the current alternatives, and truly believe it can be reformed and improved. I share this view with James Clive Matthews, who has written an excellent post on the need to take the long view and broken down his philosophy on Europe and Britain’s involvement:
10) Most individual nations are simply too damned small to have much chance of surviving on their own in the long term. Throughout history, the general trend has been for states to grow larger and larger, until some kind of limit (either geographical or geopolitical) is reached, because the larger the area you cover, the more versatile your production and the more self-sufficient you can be. – This is my primary reason for being pro-EU: I simply cannot see how a country as small as the UK (or, indeed, any European country) can survive on its own in the longer-term. Just as I see national identity being formed largely from negatives, so too is my pro-EU stance.
This is, largely, my primary reason for support as well, Britain gave up the Empire before my father was born, and joined Europe before I was born. In an increasingly globalised world, without the Empire and Commonwealth, the EU gives us negotiating clout and a sense of stability. At the time of our entry, we were a basket case economy, the stability it has given us has played a significant contributory role in our turnaround. However, as we would expect, Chris Strange has written an interesting counterpoint:
Yes it would be good if the EU was to mysteriously turn into a confederation of independent states troubling itself with only those very few matters that truly need to be sorted out at the european level, everything else being decided at the most local level possible which would generally be the individuals themselves, while the people of europe can trade freely with each other and move to where they think they would be most suited.
The problem of course with this analysis is that the EU is already, by definition, a confederation. In fact, it can be (and has been) argued that the EU is more than a simple confederacy, it is also a consociation. And therein lies the problem:
a consociational state as a state which has major internal divisions along ethnic, religious, or linguistic lines, yet nonetheless manages to remain stable, due to consultation among the elites of each of its major social groups
The EU cannot be a truly functioning democracy, because it lacks a demos. We’ve discussed this here before, but ultimately a common European identity does not, currently, exist, but it is increasingly being built [1]. The problem in Europe is that it has become used to being a consultation of the elites, a 20th Century top-down form of democracy. Given that the UK still suffers from this problem, is it fair to critique and blame the EU for a common problem? If we are to genuinely reform and democratise the UK, surely we should accept that the EU is in equal need of reform? This modern, internet age allows for communication and is opening up the field of democratic debate and discourse. Our rulers have yet to come to terms with this, our institutions have yet to come to terms with this, but centralised elite-based decision making isn’t just an EU problem, and solving it can’t be simply done by leaving the EU, Britain would still be just as badly run from Whitehall.
Both the UK and the EU need genuine, democratic, decentralising reform. In order to get it, we’ll need to work together to wake our politicians up.
[1] my only break abroad in 2006 was to visit friends and attend an event in Germany, at said event, my Italian and Greek friends complained I hadn’t been able to attend their events as I had in 2005 – these are people I keep in touch with as best I can and have travelled with and to on more than one occasion; I suspect I have more in common with some of my German, Greek and Italian friends than I do with most Brits – the power of the internet and shared interests.
What use is negotiating claut if we are lending are weight to something that is against the national (and international) interest? The only area that the EU officially has the power to negotiate over is trade. In this it consistently follows a protectionist line, including scuppering the last round of trade talks that where supposed to open up first world markets to the third in order to save the CAP.
Well, you know my opinion on the CAP, I’ve covered it before in a ‘hate hate hate’ kinda way. It’ll be done away with, and eventually the French will wake up and smell the coffee.
And I’m not sure I agree about protectionist always, the recent liberalisations over Chinese imports (which, surprise, the slimy crab botched, but let’s not blame the institution for the failings of Blair’s pet idiot).
I do think that trade should be completely free; you know my views on free movement of goods, services and people (enshrined in Rome as well, even if not enforced very well), but I’m not sold that unilateral lifting of barriers helps; need to get the US, China, Japan and others to lift their trade barriers at the same time.
And sometimes developing countries benefit from a bit of a tariff barrier; we did, the US did, Japan did, etc.
That the clout is (currently) badly used doesn’t negate the need to have it, it’s an argument to change the way we’re governed and representatives are selected. I [still] believe that to be possible, but I’d rather fix the UK first, cart and horse; it’s still a nation state driven system, and our nation is in a state…
[...] Update 2: And another, from the (generally) pro-EU MatGB of Voting Taktix, who notes: “The EU cannot be a truly functioning democracy, because it lacks a demos… it has become used to being a consultation of the elites, a 20th Century top-down form of democracy. Given that the UK still suffers from this problem, is it fair to critique and blame the EU for a common problem? …Both the UK and the EU need genuine, democratic, decentralising reform. In order to get it, we’ll need to work together to wake our politicians up.” [...]
The thing I always remember when anyone is discussing (or more likely, whinging about) the EU is that we are currently in the longest period of peace that (Western) Europe has ever known. I’m much rather we be scrapping verbally about trade rules than scrapping physically about, well, anything else.
Y’know what? That’s the short version of my position as well. There are lots of longer versions, but ultimately, peace in Europe, thankee muchly.
Peace is good, but what has it got to do with the EU?
Erm, because England, France and Germany (and others) have been kicking the shit out of each other for centuries? And because after the Second World War France and Germany in particular realised that they could keep kicking the shit out of each other and still have any people left? So they decided to be trade buddies instead. There is very credible evidence somewhere (nope, don’t have a link right now) that this was exactly what was on the minds of the original parties to the original treaty.
Ah yes, the peace myth. Peace in europe was all the result of continent wide regulation of composition of herbal remedies. Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that had anybody kicked off NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have destroyed all life on the planet.
What are you on about?
Since it was part of the history of the EU taught to me at Cambridge University, I’ll take their view over yours if you don’t mind.
What the hell the complex history of Europe in the 20th century has to do with regulation of herbal remedies I really don’t know. Oh, hang on a minute, you’re trying to be facetious. So so funny.
Y’see the problem here is that Chris is as anti-European as I am pre, and there’s a lot of anti-literature out there that debunks a lot of the assertions of the pro-EU case.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that 50 years of peace iin Europe has a large number of contributory factors, the existence of a great enemy (ie the USSR/Warsaw pact) being one, but the trade and integration process between France and Germany being another. I think the EU had a greater impact than many are now prepared to give it credit for, as the actual perceptions of Germans and French at the time are now difficult to relate to.
I certainly give credance to the idea that the EU helped keep Italy democratic rather than Communist, but that’s another issue entirely.
Can’t go into more research/linky stuff now, at a friends PC.
as I am pre*
PRO. As I am pro-European. D’oh!