Nosemonkey has an excellent thought piece on the dishonesty in the EU debate. I've responded on his blog, but wanted a chance to write a bit more than is really acceptable when commenting on someone else's blog - I was pushing it as it was!
The Nosemonkey piece was in response to the Economist's Charlemagne who complains that his column questioning whether the EP should have more power has had him characterised in the readers comments an an English nationalist advocating EU withdrawal. For what it is worth, I tihnk Charlemagne has a tendancy towards the sceptical in his columns, but they are still eminently readable because they start from a position of some knowledge and understanding of the EU and how it works.
It’s not eurosceptic to question what the EP is for, what it achieves and whether we want it to do more, or less, it’s the action of mature democrats.
But equally the maturity in the debate requires that, if it makes sense for something that we want to do is best done at European level, that we accept this rather than endlessly demanding that national level is best (e.g. CFP is a mess but in part its a mess because fish don't respect national boundaries so repatriation of fisheries policy is a very odd thing indeed to demand in comparison with root-and-branch reform of CFP at the European level).
I thought that the original thought behind the Convention on the future of Europe, and the subsequent Constitutional Treaty, was to be a full-on review and restructure to fit the needs of C21 Europeans. I guess we can say it failed in that (although its still not totally clear just why) and there are certainly some eccentricities in what is covered by European competence, in what way.
But wg's comments on Nosemonkey's blog illustrate the problem with looking for that debate in the UK.
Europhiles feel the need to talk up the EU and not talk so much about the problems although as Nosemonkey says most feel the EU is not perfect.
Unless there's someone out there to explain what good things we as a country get from being part of the EU, then the only impression that's out there to be gained is that the EU is some sort of exploitative pro-business force (which businesses dispute and has also given us lots of social legislation which they don't like but should actually be protecting the position of e.g. manual workers), only for the rich (in part because we in the UK don't make full use of e.g. ESF so people aren't aware of the benefits), and where having experience of the EU institutions is regarded with such suspicion that having a pension from the work they did there is considered enough to make their judgement in their new job questionable and would automatically exclude anyone with relevant work experience (by which logic no one that's ever worked for company X could ever work for company Y because their loyalty to their new employer might be compromised by their pension from X even though its the experience they gained there that qualifies them to take them on on behalf of company Y).
Or otherwise we can read what's in the press and what comes out of the politicians themselves (national with the agendas that come with that or EU where our media appears to have a habit of seeking out those with less moderate views).
In other words, how do we know its a costly mistake as wg says, or not a costly mistake but something that is the best place for Britain to be in the world unless we actually get a bit of honesty into the debate? Or actually even have a debate, given that those who would normally be on the radical fringes of this sort of discussion seem to be making all the running?
I'm not saying I know better that wg, who is completely entitled to his(?) view, but who can blame people for being sceptical after being told for so long that the EU is a remote, bureaucratic body that does things that even the national government doesn't try to force on people, over which victories are "won", where there's lots of corruption (as much if not more than Westminster it seems), where the visible face is less freedom to make cheaper phonecalls so much as new neighbours who are willing to work for less money and speak a different language, and that even its supporters question whether it is doing the right things or are seen as somehow having been corrupted?
And it’s always easier to listen to those shouting “EU, EU EU - out! out! out!” than to those saying “what do we want? A technical yet plain language discussion of the practical implications of the benefits and costs of addressing issues at different levels of political decision-making including European level, reappraisal of each and an institutional structure that faciliates this, accessible for and engaging with all! When do we want it? Within a reasonable timescale that allows for genuine debate without dragging on!”
Yep, I think we need a proper discussion. And part of me goes, bring it on!
But I remain to be convinced that we are able to do that in the UK at present precisely because things have got so polemic and because a lot of people would frankly rather be watching Eastenders or the football. And despite being an EU geek, that sometimes includes me!
|
|
| Views: 172
Email This to a Friend 
