Flexit not Brexit

Flexit

In a similar vain to a document I referenced in an earlier blog, the below is another document that helps the undecided voter picture a life outside the EU

It's here. http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf

Happy reading, back soon......

.......the undecided voter

The Trouble with €urope

This is a book by Roger Bootle.

And although some people may find it overtly anti-European or anti-Euro, I do not think so. I found it so incredibly balanced and describes all the various issues in a really clear and effective manner. It has been a really good book for a layperson to understand and relate to all the various issues. 

I would say he really thinks that things cannot and should not stay the same. That is not to say we should leave the EU, only if it is unable to change.

I am still an undecided voter though. But I do think David Cameron's election pledge to hold a referendum will be excellent for the UK but also really really good for Europe. I think it will help to drive the agenda for Europe in very positive ways.

For me, it has been an excellent book to read at this particular point on my learning curve.

I have summarised below just some of the points that I have found interesting. And I am sure that some of these will feature in more detail in subsequent blogs.

1. That it was a political union from the outset, based on the Treaty of Rome. I am sure this was played down in the UK referendum in the 70's.

2. What are the political benefits of this Union? If it is a political union then it needs to rectify the democratic deficit that has built up over time. When politicians can't be removed and are isolated from the electorate, decisioning making becomes poorer.

3. He says that France was against German Reunification, and only agreed on the basis that the Euro was launched earlier than envisaged, even though the Germans felt that all the various economies were not properly synchronised, i.e. too early.

4. The discussion on how the state of the world when the EU/EEC was being formed was so vastly different.

Firstly, at the time the USA and the USSR were the dominant partners, but this power axis has changed significantly  and the influence of countries like China, India, Japan and Malayasia and Brazil has increased. All these econmies feature much more significantly in the balance of economic power than in the 1950s and 1960s.

Secondly, the impact of technology on the communications system, e.g the internet, on creating a truly global economy in a manner that increased the ease with which countries can trade.

The changes have undermined the original rationale for the development of the EU.

He also highlights how compared to the dramatic development of these other economies, Europe has just underperformed relatively, focusing on trying to development the internal economy within Europe in isolation from proper development of the potential with the rest of the world.

A really good read, that I found actually quite encouraging!

Back soon.....

.....the undecided voter

Everybodies Motives for being a part of Europe

It struck me whilst writing my earlier blog, on the EUs agenda, that all the different countries have different motives for wanting to be a part of Europe.

For the UK, we had a referendum in 1974 to join Europe, and our primary aim was and still is to be able to trade and prosper economically within the markets that are geographically so close to us.

Portugal at that time was fresh out of civil war; that saw its Angolan colony given independence that lead to their own 30 years civil war.

Equally Spain was also coming to the end of 50 years of Franco's dictatorship which started as a means of preventing the communists gaining power in Spain, this dictatorship then confirmed its faschist tendencies with alignment  with Hitler and Mussolini but remained neutral during WWII and latterly was regarded more as a benevolent paternal dictatorship that was looking for a transition into  democracy over its last 10 years.

Greece at that time was also ruled by the Army Colonels.

In contrast to these three, the UK had enjoyed and benefited from hundreds of years of progressive and peaceful development of its own democracy. I do recognise, however, that it could be argued by some that the progressive development of democracy and self determination by the countries belonging to the declining British Empire were far from peaceful developments, such as in India. However, the attraction of the EU for the UK has never been driven by any yearning for obtaining greater political stability and development that some countries have sought through membership.

Countries in the East that have joined recently also have a desire to seek integration into Western Europe as a means of distancing themselves from Russian  influence, although interestingly Poland has not yet joined the Euro, unlike others even though there is a requirement to commit to joining as soon as possible.

Germany; I have read the the German's motivation for being an integral part of  the devopment of the EU was to allow it to be reintegrated in to the world community more easily following the WWI and WWII.

France; what is their motivation ? It probably started out with motives of ensuring that Europe never went to war with it itself, by tying in Germany to an economic framework that nulled historic nationalistic outlooks for a broader European outlook. I am not sure to be honest. I do sometimes think that France is very good at driving Europe as an extension of its own Foreign Policy agenda. I.e. Driving and setting the agenda for Europe, for its own benefit, and probably being very successful at it. An early example in the Seventies and Eighties the Common Agricultural Policy featured prominently. Did it want the Euro! Probably, yes, as it was one of the main countries to join at the outset. Curently though they might be struggling with the contrainsts this places on them. Their economy seems to be struggling to gather momentum. What if the Euro currency project did collapse? Where would this leave France, in terms of its ability to drive the EU agenda?

The  three pillars of the EU that i mentioned in an earlier blog are a reflection of all these demands and expectations required by member states.

A judicial framework , an economic framework (currently being packaged within a Euro currency that requires deeper political union); and a foreign policy framework.

Where the UK struggles , is that we see the need for only one of these, the ability to trade within an economic framework. But we don't want to lose our national sovereignity. We don't see the benefit of doing this. But others have the need for something else in addition. Do the Greeks want to stay in the Euro because they question their governments ability to manage their ecomomy properly?

Do all these countries really want to surrender their national governments to larger a United States of Europe, that has a central government formed from the EU parliament? A central government that sets taxation.

In many respects France and Germany have been the drivers for ever closer union

Britain is not driving it, it has generally been trying to resist lots of things, in my opinion. It has not really been driving or influencing the EU agenda, merely selecting or deselecting aspects of it, such as the Schengen agreement where people move around the continent without any passport controls/checks.

If we voted NO, what would be the impact on others in Europe? Now there is another topic for a blog!

So this is the EU Agenda....!

In my search to understand what the long term agenda is for the EU, I found the following document on the official EU website. The flavour of it is quite interesting! It certainly describes the long term  agenda to the reader. I don't recall ever seeing this in such black and white terms. But then I confess to never having gone out to look for it.

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/economic-monetary-union/docs/5-presidents-report_en.pdf

What dawned on me is that there is a reluctance on the part of those creating the economic and political union in Europe to create it through democratic means publicly in front of the wider population. I accept though that they are working within the constraints imposed on them by the democratically elected governments of the member states. For me, it mostly feels like they are changing Europe by stealth.

The document is written by the 5 presidents of the EU, of which:-

• Jean-Claude Juncker is the person that David Cameron was really keen to block from becoming European Commission President, on the grounds that he was a blatant federalist.
• Donald Tusker, an ex Polish Prime Minister is assigned to coordinating the negotiations with the UK over its relationship with the EU.
• Martin Schulz , is the President of European Parliament. He came to meet with David Cameron in June 2015,when he started the process of renegotiation. The UK papers  reported that he accused Britain of spreading hatred and lies. But I have to say that his comments were reasonable and mirrored a little of the conclusions I came to in my blog "A Timeline of the European Union", whereby the issue of benefits to migrants was a minor element blown out of proportion for the benefit of themedia appetite when compared to size of the welfare budget, which was entirely within the control of the national governments.

The most interesting aspect of the document to me in reading so far, is that their approach is to put all  the various elements of a Federal Europe in place before opening up the Federal Union to a true democracy. The European Parliament does not I suspect currently deliver democracy as we know it. Control is currently in the hands of the European Commission and the National Governments.

But at least I know for sure what the Real Agenda is now. Do I really think that the creation of a United States of Europe would serve us all better for the common good.

This document shows they want to get the economic and monetary union fully developed and in place, develop further a supra national legal entity (i.e. superior to nation states that make up the union) before then allowing people to vote within that Federal Europe. The democratic element is recognised as necessary, however the document is essentially a road map of how to get there, and with democracy coming last of all. We are currently in the stage where the EU acts as advisor to the national governments in the EU/Euro areas. They advise the national governments on ways to get the national economies to converge for greater mutual prosperity and social cohesion. The next stage is for this to be done through legal means where the EU is basically the central government that determines fiscal policy.

It is a road map to a Federal Europe and is this what we want in Europe?

That is the real question behind the UK referendum question.

At first thought, this seems completely at odds with how democracy developed in the UK, Great Britain, England, call us what you want.

But then on reflection it isn't.

Power to the people was only brought down to the great mass of the electorate during the early part of the 20th Century when women were given the vote before the First World War. And this took the best part of 900 years to achieve. Magna Carta represented the start of a legal structure that allowed those in power to rule over the population, but with consent that gradually developed over time. That power was distributed down from the King/Queen who owned everything through their various representatives like Dukes and Earls that were in Royal favour, primarily through land ownership which was really where wealth was originally created by organizing the land for farming. The associated legal structures were developed over centuries through legal precedence. All of this was instrumental in defining property ownership, and from this the industrial revolution could take off. This paragraph, I  know, is such a condensed version of events, and can easily be regarded as so brief to be dangerous, however...

Why have we just gone though a 1000 years of democratic development, to then just relinquish everything for a European Federal State in the space of 40-50 years. Why? Why are the peoples of Europe being asked to relinquish their national governments?

It amused me to read somewhere, that a Spanish commentator on the UK's 2015 General election said of the British, " the British really do know how to vote". The result that gave the Conservatives a slim majority may not be liked by everyone, but it certainly was a decisive result when all the commentators were either wishing for, or expecting a hung parliament.

Perhaps the EU Commission was really wanting a hung parliament in the UK, and then the Conservatives would not be able to carry through on their pledge for a referendum.

And on a similar note, I did find it interesting that all those from the EU/IMF troika that have been involved in negotiating with Greece on a further bailout of the Greek economy to help hold it in the Euro zone were all incredulous when the Greek government decided to hold a referendum on the offer, even though the offer had expired. They absolutely do not want issues of such significance to be opened up to the general population. Yes,  the democratically elected government of Greece may not be helping the process but one thing is for sure they do respect the democratic process. They know that they were elected to try and get a better deal and relieve the austerity whilst remaining in the Euro. It always looked impossible to achieve these two constraints together but when they can't  achieve them they go back to the electorate. I accept serious amounts of money are involved here, and the creditors want their money back, that is for sure. But if you look at the wider picture, the costs that Greece are currently paying are only the costs associated with the creation of this Federal Europe. The two biggest creditors, apart from the IMF are France and Germany. And I thought it was interesting that one Greek commentator said that at least this time there is more openness and transparency for the Greek people on the bail-out discussions. For her the early agreements were discussed in private between the EU creditors and the Greek government at that time.

The will of the people within Europe really is a secondary thought for those keen on developing the European Project. I can't help thinking that if they kept what is best for the people at the forefront of their minds, Europe might develop at a pace and in a manner that was beneficial to the people it is supposed to serve. And if takes a thousand years to achieve then so what! And to keep the people behind you, the leaders have to develop a framework for prosperity for all. But not just when the project is complete but at each stage along this road map.

The current tensions in Europe on so many fronts surely begs the questions

a) are they achieving this prosperity?
b) is it worth it?


Back soon...

....an undecided voter

Ever Closer Union

I sense, with my last blog, there was a little frustration creeping in. A sense that I want the EU to justify itself and clarify its agenda.

I realise that UK politicians have probably never been that keen on over-emphasising the political union aspects that have crept in over the last 40 years.

I think the vast majority of the UK population support any union that promotes open economic activity, particularly as any such trade promotes cohesion and a natural interdependence of the countries involved. This reduces the risk of war which shaped the last Century so much. And all this is good for the future.

I am in Amsterdam airport and just texted home for something like 9 pence quite cheap really. I associate the EU with this benefit. They made this happen. I suspect the mobile phone industry would have clung on to the lucrative trade across EU borders for as long as possible.

Such EU initiatives have to have a legal structure across borders to be effective. Or can it be done through trade or intergovernmental agreements. The issues become complex when you start to think about it in more detail. A free trade zone still needs policing, to restrict the development by mergers of businesses to create monopolies, for example. You could in theory have a French mobile telecoms company completely dominating and controlling the whole mobile phone market in Europe, as a crude example.

So then policies have to be developed and agreed between nation states.　

And with policies comes politics. And who manages that whole process of what to agree upon. How is the agenda set? And by whom?

So if the overriding agenda item is Ever Closer Union....

The phrase "ever closer union" first appeared formerly back in the 1983 Solemn Declaration on European Union, although the Union (meaning its member governments) had no policy to create a federal state.

It can be interpreted in anyway the reader likes. Ever closer economic union. Every closer political union. So where something like this is vague, it can allow the people setting the agenda to move in ways that seem harmless but can have far reaching implications.

The Lisbon Treaty (2007) marked the point where the unqualified majority voting was further fine tuned. This was felt necessary to allow the EU to function effectively and be able to make progress and develop further, particularly since the Treaty of Niece (2001) set the agenda for ever larger union, with the explicit agenda of enlarging the union to allow the Eastern European countries to join the EU.


 

As a pure layman, I can see that the above table allows for some degree of democracy, some requirement to develop consensus of opinion before proceeding in a particular direction. Together, Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain, represent 62.8%. So if they are in agreement on issues, then decisions will get carried through most likely as a majority of 65% is needed.

Just as a little aside, if the UK were leave Europe, what impact would it have on Europe? Food for thought!

I remember the Maastricht Treaty being a period when the Conservative Government tore itself apart over Europe. All the other treaties were when a Labour government was in power, I do not remember there being as much open debate about Europe. Tony Blair did offer a referendum when there was talk of a European Constitution being agreed, but then somewhere it was decided not proceed with that, and instead include the main points in the Lisbon Treaty. I suppose Treaties are intergovernmental agreements and so can be viewed as not something that the population at large would regard as a Federal Europe.

The more I look into issues, the more complex this whole issue of a referendum actually is. But the last thing we should all do is leave it to bunch of politicians.

I will just have to keep researching the whole complex issue we are being asked to vote on.

Back soon .....


....an undecided voter