If one is negotiating with a rival, an opponent or even a partner who cannot continue to exist without one's support, you'd have to say that one would be in a strong position to achieve what one wanted.
When you start a sentence using 'one' it gets out of hand doesn't it? Anyway..
This is essentially where David Cameron is right now.
Without the UK's support - the only thriving economy in the EU besides Germany just now - the EU simply cannot continue to exist. Outside of Germany all Eurozone countries are struggling, some more than others I grant you, but all are in deep economic shit (technical economic term).
Following the utter shambles that has been Greece for the past 7 years and the fact that the other 'PIGS' are still mired in debt, and the 'crisis' that Greece's problems (a net recipient to the EU it is worth remembering) caused to the EU, what would happen if the UK were to say: 'No thanks Angela, we're out'?
It would fold. And quite quickly.
And that puts Dave in a very strong position from which to negotiate reforms of the EU that are in the UK's interests.
And he has stated, over and over again, that the EU needs reform and that the UK needs the EU to reform if we are to remain as a member. His stance is that he will support us 'remaining in' a reformed EU. And that's kinda OK, if the reforms he's talking about address the serious issues we face and will repatriate democratic powers to the UK, will allow us to control our borders, will re-assert the primacy of our own parliament over the EU. Will allow us to negotiate our own global trade deals. But Dave will not tell us what his red lines for renegotiations are. So we have no idea what his 'reformed EU' actually means or looks like.
Even members of his own Cabinet do not know what the renegotiations are trying to achieve. How mad is that?
It's like holding four aces in your hand in a game of Poker. And knowing that your opponent has, at best a pair of threes.
If we leave the EU fails. Almost overnight (which is why it will be a massively dirty fight when push comes to shove in the referendum). The reality is that if Dave is currently in a massively strong position to negotiate these reforms that he tells us about: If he wanted all members of the EU Parliament to come over to the UK and go litter picking on the M1 on the first Monday of every month in return for keeping their cushy lifestyles and solid gold pension funds intact, he could demand it and they would come. They would simply have no choice.
So why isn't he?
First let's take a look at whether they are rivals, opponents or partners. And then let's add in the terms 'customers' and 'friends' to that list - it's worth doing.
Rivals?
Well yes, Eurozone countries are our rivals in terms of trade. We compete, albeit on an increasingly global agenda for business and UK manufacturers and suppliers of goods and services are therefore rivals of other European countries. Simple fact.
Opponents?
Similar I grant you, but 'opponents' is perhaps a stronger term. We can work alongside and compete with rivals, but opponents are those who compete in order to beat us. (i.e they are stronger, more credible and potentially an existential threat to our economic drivers and industries).
And generally speaking that means Germany. Germany has enjoyed a 30% exchange rate advantage from being in the Eurozone compared to what it would have had to face on its own. That means its good and services have been 30% cheaper to sell than had it been using the Deutchsmark instead of the Euro. And that has had a massive impact on the UK's ability to compete on a world scale in recent years (since 2001).
In simple terms it's why Germany continues to make things for export where we don't. But, and this is important looking forward, we are starting to compete with them in terms of goods for export and their exchange rate advantages have made them lethargic. We are in better shape than they are right now. And Brexit would accelerate this process.
Partners?
Yes we are partners in this European project. But we saw it as being about free trade and protecting other European states from bullying by larger, stronger countries so that they could prosper within a wider trading bloc. As usual we (the UK) were generous in this regard. We saw the value of the principle and recognised that Europe's diversity would enrich all of its citizens if all prospered through trade and offering what it (each European country) was best at to the rest of the European 'club'.
Unfortunately Germany didn't (and doesn't) see it that way. It wants, as fucking always, to control everything and bring it all within Germany's yolk.
Customers?
The biggest trading bloc on the planet? Well of course it's about customers. But the EU is not about 'global customers' it's about milking European customers for the benefit of European 'suppliers'. This is why the EU has massively protectionist trading policies with Africa. Why it effectively prevents African agriculture from trading its way into the first world.
Why it effectively perpetuates the rape of Africa by the West. And why our membership precludes us from trading on our own behalf with the rest of the planet. It is not globalist but insular and protectionist in its outlook. Not something that the UK has ever been in favour of. As a relatively small island nation we have always been about trading with the world. Europe and the EU simply does not have that mindset. It is protectionist, and, in order to keep France on board, it is about protecting France's feudal, quaint, arguably lovable, but nonetheless inefficient subsistence farming culture. A minor point? 47% of the EU budget goes into agriculture and while that enables efficient agribusiness in the UK and Germany to make mega profits (and consumers ripped off), it is essentially about keeping France on board as previously described.
And while we're talking about 'customers', it is worth remembering that the UK is the Eurozone's biggest customer, worldwide. We take more goods and services from the Eurozone than any other country on earth and there is a trade deficit in Europe's favour, of £46 billion a year. If you think the EU would impose trade sanctions on its biggest source of income should we leave, you're in cloud cuckoo land.
Friends?
This is the crux really isn't it? 'Friends' are people with whom one agrees, with whom one has a common purpose, (I am aware of the irony of that phrase), common values and aspirations. One might not agree on every issue, but the general 'direction of travel' tends to be the same. How to get there might be a bone of contention, but the end result tends to be the same. And the discussion along the way tend to be friendly rather than confrontational.
I think we are friends with European people in general. I think we share the same values of freedom and prosperity, hard work for positive results individually and collectively, as a nation and as a geographically united place. We are part of Europe by dint of where we sit on the planet geographically.
But we are not 'friends' with EU politicians who want this great continent of ours to be a single place, with no diversity, with no local 'culture or traditions'. Everywhere being Germany in essence.
And we are not friends with a point of view that will make Europe a single state. With its own flag and anthem and army. That is not what anyone in Europe, from Kiel to Kos, Kerry to the Crimea actually wants. And it is certainly not what the UK government wants, but we continue to pay £28 million a day (net) to help them to go in the wrong direction from our viewpoint? How mad is that?
And this is being imposed upon us without our democratic agreement - not just in the UK but amongst the 'ordinary' people of Europe. Yes we can talk about EU politicians until the cows come home, but this 'federation' is being sought by Germany, imposed by Germany, and at the moment the UK is not just siting idly by while this happens and at the same time supporting it financially.
Why?
Either Dave is an utter idiot (which he isn't) or there is a much bigger game at play here. I think the latter is true, but if so why are we not being told what this is all really about? If the bigger picture is supposed to be in our interests, why are we not being told what is driving all this?
If you're interested I think it's about Agenda 21 and ICLIE and you can read more here if you're interested.
The bottom line is that the EU has failed, it has not brought prosperity to Europe (it is the world's only shrinking trading bloc) it has not protected the smaller nation states from being bullied by the larger ones (quite obviously) and it's recent actions on immigration show that it is clueless in terms of protecting its people and that its actions are in fact more likely to promote conflict and war between and within EU countries.
And Dave is sitting there holding all the aces and is unwilling to play them for the benefit of the UK. 'We need a reformed EU' he tells us, 'for the good of this country'. And yet while this outcome is entirely within his gift, the Prime Minister of the country is not prepared to act in the interests of UK citizens?
That's not just mad, but much more sinister than that. It is a complete con and it feels like we're being sold down the river for a cause that we are being told nothing about, even though we're paying for it.
Thanks for reading
No comments:
Post a Comment