When presented, for the first time in 40 years, with the opportunity to 'reboot' the UK's relationship with the EU, I have to say that I expected a more wide-ranging set of choices, a more fundamental set of questions to be addressed and a more UK-focused approach to the whole subject. We are, after all the 3rd biggest financial contributor to the EU (although I have severe doubts as to whether France does actually contribute {net} more than we do), and the Eurozone's biggest customer for trade on the planet so one would expect us to be able to have some say in the future direction of the European Union from time to time.
Every 40 years or so, for example.
One would also expect our views to be taken seriously by our 'friends' in the EU and that we would be shown considerable respect by Eurocrats, even if they disagree with our views.
So, imagine my surprise to find that what we are actually faced with are a couple of largely meaningless 'initiatives' that might possibly (but by no means certainly) help to address a couple of issues that have become areas of concern in the EU: immigration and sovereignty.
Clearly both of these issues are important. Fundamentally they are about controlling the destiny of a nation state - a state which has the democratic systems in place to enable it to do just this in the interests of - and with the agreement of - it's inhabitants.
And yet, instead of the 'genuine reforms' we were promised 'in the interests of UK citizens', the measures, on the basis of which we're being asked to vote to remain, are not in our control at all. They will not be enacted on the basis of their being what UK citizens want, but only if the citizens (and actually not really the wider European public but a handful of unelected Eurocrats) of other countries agree to them.
So get this straight: these measures - Red Cards on EU legislation which are subject to our securing agreement from 14 other EU countries (who have almost never supported us in the past) - and an 'Emergency Brake' which is unlikely to be ratified by the EU but in any case will require the EU to agree to a nebulous situation in which we face an extreme threat (which we do not define ourselves), are the most 'solid' reforms that Dave is bringing forward for us to vote on? Really?
So we're the Eurozone's biggest customer, we pay £28m a day (net) into the EU coffers; if we leave it will cause utter chaos in the EU (and probably see the failure of the entire project) and this is all Dave can come up with?
Measures that probably will not reduce immigration anyway but in order to achieve them we will have to go cap in hand to Messrs Junker, Tusk and the other usually sneering EU ministers for agreement?
The talk, for months if not years, has been about our voting to 'Remain' in a 'reformed EU'. What is now being proposed is not, in any way a reform to the EU. At the very most, it is about a reform of our relationship with the EU - but even this is not something that we can control or enact without the support and agreement of people in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg whose support and agreement we have almost never got in the past.
It's an utter sham and by standing up with a straight face and telling us that this is a good deal for Britain, Dave is undermining everything that he personally and his party collectively has achieved in the last 6 years. I am a fan of Dave, a supporter even, but whether we are governed by the EU or not is much more important than UK party politics. Indeed UK party politics will be largely irrelevant if we vote to 'remain', since the majority of our laws in the future will be imposed upon us from Brussels.
And we (the UK) have consistently stated that we do not share the direction of travel upon which the EU is embarked - i.e. towards ever closer union, a single federal state of Europe, with a single government, flag, anthem, army, financial regime, tax and employment laws. Indeed one of Dave's other 'measures' in this current shambles is about securing an exemption from this direction.
Why do we need to secure a guarantee that we will not be forced to go in the same direction as the EU? And perhaps more importantly, why do we want to continue to be a member - and pay £billions every year for the privilege - of a club whose values, ambitions and actions we do not share - and which have also proved to be disastrous for most of southern Europe?
Why does Dave want us to 'remain' in an organisation that restricts our global status, influence and trading ability? That reduces us from our status as the worlds 5th largest economy to one 28th of the world's only shrinking trading bloc with a diminishing 8% influence?
And why would we British citizens want to 'remain' under the yoke of an EU whose decision-and-law-makers will almost certainly never have heard of where we live, much less understand our lives, concerns, values or ambitions? Have we become so meek, so lacking in confidence that we are now happy for Luxembourgers to impose the parameters under which we live our lives? Have we become so subservient as a nation?
However one looks at it, Dave's deal does not stack up as being in the interests of the UK or its citizens. He held all the cards and asked for the square root of sod all in terms of reforms. If he'd threatened to campaign for brexit the EU would have had to accept almost any demands he put forward - or face disaster, chaos and almost certain failure. He didn't. He has, in my opinion, sold us down the river.
Sadly this will be his Blair 2003 moment, when all credibility will be lost. And if we do manage to wake up in sufficient numbers to secure brexit, Dave will be kicked out in ignominy and judged very harshly by history. Sad for him, but glorious for the United Kingdom and its future prosperity and standing in the world.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment