Friday, 23 October 2015
Charles Kennedy Memorial Debate
On the 25th September 2015 at Glasgow University, there was Charles Kennedy Memorial Debate, entitled
"This House believes that the UK should remain within the European Union"
The recording unfortunately did not have a great sound quality so it is hard to hear the speakers argument. It can be found at:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHgTPbPTiTs
And looks like gust.tv are not doing anything to improve the editing of it. If you do look at it, ignore the first 25 minutes!
Anyway, the one significant aspect that did come out of the debate was that those arguing to remain in the EU, wanted to remain in a reformed EU.
This is not the greatest of positions on which to advocate staying in, is it?
What are we staying in? An Institution that will change?
I think the Referendum is a good thing to have, but I have come to conclusion that the Leave or Remain options will mean completely different things to different people, as they place their X on the paper in that booth. Some will base their decision on the history of their experience. some on the current state of the EU. And some will base their decision on how they perceive the EU will change in the future.
The EU for sure will change and develop, and they will have to integrate more to make the Euro currency work properly. They already admit that there needs to be a new Treaty to make the changes necessary to strengthen the Euro currency.
One of the In advocates, The Scottish MEP, Ian Duncan, admitted the EU was a very flawed institution and does need to change. He advocates reform, but unfortunately he gave no detail as to how he thought it should change. And not even in his own summary of the evening, found at:-
http://www.ianduncan.org.uk/blog/reflections-first-charles-kennedy-debate-and-future-eu
So I have resolved to find out what I can about the various pro-EU groupings that are advocating Reform for the European Union.
I also think I need to go back and read again the document that I mentioned in my blog titled
So this is the EU Agenda....!
The document is the 5 Presidents report by EU, that I have heard mentioned a few times now.
Back soon....
......the Undecided Voter!
Monday, 10 August 2015
Euro Unification vs. German Reunification !!!
One of the points that caught my eye whilst reading "The Trouble with Europe" was that Roger Bootle mentioned that France decided to drop its objections to German Reunification in 1989/90 in exchange for agreement in progressing with the launch of the Euro currency.
I realise my knowledge of the detail is limited, but I was surprised to think that France could have any control over such an issue. So I decided to look briefly into the history of German Reunification.
I have been browsing here on Wiki, just as a means of quickly gaining an insight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification#Britain_and_France
What was interesting to see was that it was not just France who was concerned about German Reunification but also the UK aswell. Margaret Thatcher remained firmly against it to the end.
How could countries like France and Britain have a say on these matters 40 years after the war.
Then I started reading about how, here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification#Four_powers
France, Britain, the US and Russia still had control over East Berlin, and there were implications for Nato and the defence of Western Europe through NATO that had to be considered.
Back to France; I am not sure I quite take what Roger Bootle said in his book as completely accurate on this point. The plans for the Euro were already well developed by that stage, and probably France just saw it as an opportunity to push forward sooner with the Euro than perhaps Germany wanted, by agreeing to German Reunification. I can also well imagine that France might see the common currency as a means of constraining Germany within the European Project and so not grow bigger independently from Europe. German reunification caused concerns within other European countries that had to be assuaged.
As a result of my reading about this issue , I realise, Europe in whatever form will always be some kind of political union in some way shape and form. Countries cannot do as they like independently from others. All these different countries have to work together in some form of political working arrangement. German reunification caused concerns within other European countries that had to be assuaged.
A vote for NO in the UK Referendum on EU membership will not allow us to be isolated from the EU. We have to continue to work with the other countries, for the economic benefit of us all. And this fact by its very nature, means we have to have some form of political cooperation moving forward.
But I suppose the Eurosceptics amongst us realise that the way the EU is developing is not going to lead to a successful conclusion.
This is an area where Roger Bootle's book was so informative. He is an economist by profession, but highlights in simple terms how EUs 'evercloser' political union will only lead to upset and failure. This failure is manifesting itself currently in significant migration flows, high unemployment, and poor growth for most of the Eurozone. In his view those politicians and technocrats who are driving the EU/Euro Agenda, with harmonization and solidarity are making mistakes, that are having a significant impact on huge numbers of people, particularly the younger generations. And through the democratic deficit of the political structure, the general population can not exert any influence on such developments through the polls, by voting the politicians out for such failings. There are no effective checks and balances.
One of the main mistakes is trying to develop Europe in isolation from the rest of the world. Perhaps they should concentrate more on collective trade agreements with the rest of the world, to help provide growth, rather than seeking to develop Europe in ways that prevent it from adapting to the effects of globalization.
Interestingly, the wiki articles shows that the cost of German reunification was 200billion Euro per year over 20 years. A lot of money, but it was a political and fiscal union from the outset. The East Germans wanted to adopt the Deutschmark as they saw it as a more stable currency. They wanted to be a member of NATO and relinquish its former connections through the Warsaw Pact.
In contrast, the two Greek bailouts totaled 240 billion Euros (ie about a year of German reunification) of which France and Germany are the main creditors. In the grand scheme of things it is relatively small cost as part of the "Euro Unification" Project. And Greece has effectively lost its political independence and its sovereignty.
I realise my knowledge of the detail is limited, but I was surprised to think that France could have any control over such an issue. So I decided to look briefly into the history of German Reunification.
I have been browsing here on Wiki, just as a means of quickly gaining an insight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification#Britain_and_France
What was interesting to see was that it was not just France who was concerned about German Reunification but also the UK aswell. Margaret Thatcher remained firmly against it to the end.
How could countries like France and Britain have a say on these matters 40 years after the war.
Then I started reading about how, here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification#Four_powers
France, Britain, the US and Russia still had control over East Berlin, and there were implications for Nato and the defence of Western Europe through NATO that had to be considered.
Back to France; I am not sure I quite take what Roger Bootle said in his book as completely accurate on this point. The plans for the Euro were already well developed by that stage, and probably France just saw it as an opportunity to push forward sooner with the Euro than perhaps Germany wanted, by agreeing to German Reunification. I can also well imagine that France might see the common currency as a means of constraining Germany within the European Project and so not grow bigger independently from Europe. German reunification caused concerns within other European countries that had to be assuaged.
As a result of my reading about this issue , I realise, Europe in whatever form will always be some kind of political union in some way shape and form. Countries cannot do as they like independently from others. All these different countries have to work together in some form of political working arrangement. German reunification caused concerns within other European countries that had to be assuaged.
A vote for NO in the UK Referendum on EU membership will not allow us to be isolated from the EU. We have to continue to work with the other countries, for the economic benefit of us all. And this fact by its very nature, means we have to have some form of political cooperation moving forward.
But I suppose the Eurosceptics amongst us realise that the way the EU is developing is not going to lead to a successful conclusion.
This is an area where Roger Bootle's book was so informative. He is an economist by profession, but highlights in simple terms how EUs 'evercloser' political union will only lead to upset and failure. This failure is manifesting itself currently in significant migration flows, high unemployment, and poor growth for most of the Eurozone. In his view those politicians and technocrats who are driving the EU/Euro Agenda, with harmonization and solidarity are making mistakes, that are having a significant impact on huge numbers of people, particularly the younger generations. And through the democratic deficit of the political structure, the general population can not exert any influence on such developments through the polls, by voting the politicians out for such failings. There are no effective checks and balances.
One of the main mistakes is trying to develop Europe in isolation from the rest of the world. Perhaps they should concentrate more on collective trade agreements with the rest of the world, to help provide growth, rather than seeking to develop Europe in ways that prevent it from adapting to the effects of globalization.
Interestingly, the wiki articles shows that the cost of German reunification was 200billion Euro per year over 20 years. A lot of money, but it was a political and fiscal union from the outset. The East Germans wanted to adopt the Deutschmark as they saw it as a more stable currency. They wanted to be a member of NATO and relinquish its former connections through the Warsaw Pact.
In contrast, the two Greek bailouts totaled 240 billion Euros (ie about a year of German reunification) of which France and Germany are the main creditors. In the grand scheme of things it is relatively small cost as part of the "Euro Unification" Project. And Greece has effectively lost its political independence and its sovereignty.
Does Germany want to fianance Euro-Unification aswell. Just what is the benefit? For them? And for the others? I think sometimes I just lack any understanding of benefits for peoples of Europe that EU / Euro gives
In his book, Roger Bootle talks of the huge imbalances in currency flows between the various countries within the Euro. Germany has benefited enormously within the Eurozone. It is the strongest economy within a currency whose exchange rate is fixed by the overall performance of all the Euro zone countries. i.e the Euro is held lower relatively allowing Germany to trade more easily, where as, if the Deutschmark were still traded, it would trade at a relatively stronger rate than the other Euro countries, thereby blunting its competiveness edge relatively, making its goods and services more expensive for the other countries to buy.
To be a success any shared currency union has to have political union. All of Germany wanted to reunite, both politically and economically.
The Euro zone has a shared currency but without full political and fiscal union; and the associated full loss of sovereignty by the participating countries.
The political elites within the EU/Eurozone want full political union and whilst they fail to build a system that encourages the general population to openly want it as well, their progress to this end will be difficult. No referendums in any country have been fervently for Euro-integration.
For the UK, is the EU referendum really about putting a stop to 'ever closing union'? Maybe this is where David Cameron has come to in his thinking! The outcome of David Cameron's negotiations will be very interesting, for sure.
There has to be some kind of intergovernmental working relationship between all the countries in Europe. That is a political union to a degree but one where the politicians are kept closer to the electorate!
Back soon.....
.... An Undecided Voter
In his book, Roger Bootle talks of the huge imbalances in currency flows between the various countries within the Euro. Germany has benefited enormously within the Eurozone. It is the strongest economy within a currency whose exchange rate is fixed by the overall performance of all the Euro zone countries. i.e the Euro is held lower relatively allowing Germany to trade more easily, where as, if the Deutschmark were still traded, it would trade at a relatively stronger rate than the other Euro countries, thereby blunting its competiveness edge relatively, making its goods and services more expensive for the other countries to buy.
To be a success any shared currency union has to have political union. All of Germany wanted to reunite, both politically and economically.
The Euro zone has a shared currency but without full political and fiscal union; and the associated full loss of sovereignty by the participating countries.
The political elites within the EU/Eurozone want full political union and whilst they fail to build a system that encourages the general population to openly want it as well, their progress to this end will be difficult. No referendums in any country have been fervently for Euro-integration.
For the UK, is the EU referendum really about putting a stop to 'ever closing union'? Maybe this is where David Cameron has come to in his thinking! The outcome of David Cameron's negotiations will be very interesting, for sure.
There has to be some kind of intergovernmental working relationship between all the countries in Europe. That is a political union to a degree but one where the politicians are kept closer to the electorate!
Back soon.....
.... An Undecided Voter
Thursday, 30 July 2015
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
Friday, 17 July 2015
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
Wednesday, 8 July 2015
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.
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!
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:-
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
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.
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
So if the overriding agenda item is Ever Closer Union....
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)