We're all pissed off
Looks like the eurosceptics are just as annoyed with their self-appointed spokespeople as those of us who are pro have been with ours.
EU Referendum's Richard North makes the very fair point that
"The cause of Euroscepticism is not best served by this ranting as it presents us with the added difficulty of having to overcome the "loony-fringe" label before we are even able to get the message across."This sounds remarkably similar to my own complaint from the other day that
"Most of the pro-EU lot do no service to that side of the debate, usually painting eurosceptics with the broadest of "little Englander" and "xenophobe" brushes, sounding utterly patronising and making us all look like self-righteous arseholes".Neither side of the EU debate are happy. It seems as though none of those purporting to speak for either the anti or the pro camps are particularly in tune with what the people they claim to represent actually think.
Neither side is entirely happy with the constitution. But the referendum is - and has been since it was first mooted - being portrayed as a referendum on whether or not we see benefits to EU membership, not on the constitution itself. Both hardcore eurosceptics and hardcore pro-Europeans are presenting it as if the true question is "Do you want to be part of the EU?"
If we could calm it down a bit, both sides of the argument would reject the constitution - albeit for different reasons. Then a new constitution (or treaty, if you don't like the "c"-word) could be drawn up, ideally with a provision in it for certain nations to set up a second tier of EU membership where the relationship stays much as it is (although tidied up and with further safeguards put in place), while others can go ahead with EMU and closer integration unimpeded by the less enthusiastic member states. Then we can, if necessary, hold a referendum on which group we want to belong to. I'd say that'd be ideal for all concerned.
Instead, us pro-EU lot are feeling pressured to defend the very concept of the EU - past, present and future - in the face of constant attacks from the antis. This is despite the fact that the real debate should be over the constitution, and from what I can tell, most of us pro-EU people don't like that much more than most eurosceptics do, but see it as necessary to pass simply because it has been transmogrified into a personification of the EU itself.
I think the EU is a good thing for Britain. I reckon a new treaty to tie up all the loose ends of six decades of European integration is necessary. I don't think the current constitution does the job as well as it could and should. But I may end up voting in favour of it anyway (I haven't yet made up my mind) purely to register my support for Britain's membership of the EU itself. That is not what the vote should be about, but that is what it is being turned into.
Tuesday edit: Yesterday someone posted a comment to this old post, in which I accused dear Dr North of doing precisely what he is complaining of in the quote above. The comment is, I think, worth copying here - it is very similar to my initial reasoning for abandoning my former eurosceptic ways:
I used to be very anti-European for what I thought were clear and rational arguements: That government should be closer to the people, that it was bad enough having one interest rate for 3 countries and Northern Ireland, without having one for the whole of Europe, etc.Wednesday edit: In the interest of balance, another response (in the comments to this post), from the other side of the fence:
My turning point was when a met a hoary old man on the high street one Saturday with a campaign to "bring back the pound". I am 40, and I know FA about pounds and ounces. I did decimals all through school and I just thought "Whoaa, what planet did he come from?". He was also launching into an emotional diatribe about Brussels, cheese, chocolate and bananas, that just turned me off.
That was my eye-opener to the fact that a lot of what you read in the papers about Europe is just wonky and the fantasy of some scary types. I still have reservations, but I realised that I am generally in the "pro" camp, because I have nothing in common with the wild and wooley eyed brigade. ~Nan
7 years ago when a young stagiere I was walking round Brussels in a red t-shirt with Europa emblazoned across the front. While verring on the sceptic side before the Iraq war the behaviour of France and Germany cemented my previous scepticism more firmly. I still think that Britain overall gains from being a member through cheap flights and EU workers based in Britain, but the more I learn about the policies and regulations coming from Brussels, the corruption, lack of accountability, stitch ups and poorly conceived polices, the more I think that generally I've made the right decision.
4 Comments:
By contrast with your other commentator, 7 years ago when a young stagiere I was walking round Brussels in a red t-shirt with Europa emblazoned across the front. While verring on the sceptic side before the Iraq war the behaviour of France and Germany cemented my previous scepticism more firmly. I still think that Britain overall gains from being a member through cheap flights and EU workers based in Britain, but the more I learn about the policies and regulations coming from Brussels, the corruption, lack of accountability, stitch ups and poorly conceived polices, the more I think that generally I've made the right decision.
Yes, debate on the constitution is pretty rotten on both sides and your post was an interesting reflection on how the constitution should have been designed. The referendum is the major political issue facing Britain for the next generation and its scale and significance is reflected in the way debate has opened up on the wider impacts of EU membership.
In fact, I am also increasingly of the opinion that Iraq represented a defining moment in the European project. But for the better, not for the worse. Yes, I agree that the behaviour of France and Germany was reprehensible. However, the way that the US steamrollered the decision to invade through the UN was hardly Washington's most glorious moment. Since then, the countries of Europe have stepped back and asked whether we wanted to see a repeat of this in the future. The answer appears to be a resounding 'no'.
Setting aside Iraq, just think in the past year how many major foreign policy issues the countries of Europe stand united on. Think of diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran's nuclear ambitions from coming to fruition, Middle East Peace, elections in Ukraine, arms exports to China, global warming, reconstruction after the Tsunami, etc. On every one of these major issues the UK is closer to its EU partners than to Washington. So, rather than being a reason to believe that Europe is doomed to fracture, I would contend that Iraq has actually been vital for enhacing the cause of European unity.
James
James - I argued something similar the day before the US elections (the real discussion starts a couple of paragraphs in).
Let me see if I can get my mind round Nan’s point. Her ignorance of historical weights and measures, confusion of those with a sub set of simple base 10 arithmetic, make her a europhile?
Or was it someone pointing these out that made her so? Or the presence of an old man?
None really seem to have much to do with freedom, liberty, constitutional order, economics, law....the things that are actually under discussion.
Post a Comment