Europe and the Tories Wagging the Dog

[scottycelt]

The trouble with UK Prime Ministers like Cameron is that they are now over half-a century out of date. They still see Europe as a continent of wholly independent, separate nation states. Well, it is no longer.

Continental Europe has been gradually uniting since the 1950's and will continue to do so. Of course the UK can remain aloof and tell most of the rest of Europe to 'get stuffed'. Unfortunately for the UK Europe will continue to unite whatever the UK says. If the UK insists on trying to turn the clock back she will be left as irrelevant and as impotent as currently Cuba is viz-a-viz the US. The world will be ruled by political and economic blocs and the UK will have no input or influence with any of them.

Winston Churchill, ironically the great hero of the Little Englanders, was quick to grasp this and predict what would happen.

What an appalling prospect our children and grandchildren face if these blind Little Englanders ever get their way and betray that now vindicated Churchill vision!

[aeolium]

Winston Churchill, ironically the great hero of the Little Englanders, was quick to grasp this and predict what would happen.

What an appalling prospect our children and grandchildren face if these blind Little Englanders ever get their way and betray that now vindicated Churchill vision!

Churchill's vision was almost certainly not that of a European federation of which Britain was a member. He was an incorrigible believer in the British Empire, perhaps the last significant British politician to hold such a belief, even after the 2nd world war. Here for instance are examples of that imperialist thinking and policy. And although his speeches emphasised the necessity of creating a United States of Europe, most famously in his Zurich speech of September 1946, that federation was to be one of which Britain was a sponsor and supporter, not a member, a Britain still with an empire and ranking with the USA and the USSR: Britain was "with Europe, not of it", as this article makes clear. So Churchill was a flawed visionary in that respect.

Cameron's referendum proposal was partly forced on him by the right-wingers in his party and by the haemorrhaging of Conservative support to UKIP. It was also partly "low politics", to wrong-foot the Labour party (and the Libdems) who can be portrayed as being unwilling to offer the electorate a say on Europe. He probably also calculates that it is a referendum promise he is unlikely to have to fulfil, there being a number of difficult hurdles to negotiate before the conditions allow it (not least getting a clear majority in the next election).

The referendum issue seems to me something of a distraction compared with the steps that the EU take to resolve the crisis in the Eurozone. If the EU does this by moving towards greater fiscal and political union then I think these are very dangerous steps unless they are taken with the consent of the people of the affected European states as it would represent a major departure from the way they are currently governed. There has been a worrying rise in populist and extremist parties throughout Europe over the last decade or so, accelerating with the economic crisis - see this report for instance with its interactive map (which strangely excludes Greece). If European politicians think this can be simply ignored or dismissed, or the parties and their supporters ridiculed ("fruitcakes") then they really ought to think again. Here is what the German playwright Carl Zuckmayer wrote later about Hitler: "We made fun of his poor German, his bombastic style, and were convinced that such a half-educated fool could never be taken seriously in Germany, a nation of professors and scholars, let alone the faintest chance of achieving leadership."

[scottycelt]

Churchill's vision was almost certainly not that of a European federation of which Britain was a member. He was an incorrigible believer in the British Empire, perhaps the last significant British politician to hold such a belief, even after the 2nd world war. Here for instance are examples of that imperialist thinking and policy. And although his speeches emphasised the necessity of creating a United States of Europe, most famously in his Zurich speech of September 1946, that federation was to be one of which Britain was a sponsor and supporter, not a member, a Britain still with an empire and ranking with the USA and the USSR: Britain was "with Europe, not of it", as this article makes clear. So Churchill was a flawed visionary in that respect.

Cameron's referendum proposal was partly forced on him by the right-wingers in his party and by the haemorrhaging of Conservative support to UKIP. It was also partly "low politics", to wrong-foot the Labour party (and the Libdems) who can be portrayed as being unwilling to offer the electorate a say on Europe. He probably also calculates that it is a referendum promise he is unlikely to have to fulfil, there being a number of difficult hurdles to negotiate before the conditions allow it (not least getting a clear majority in the next election).

The referendum issue seems to me something of a distraction compared with the steps that the EU take to resolve the crisis in the Eurozone. If the EU does this by moving towards greater fiscal and political union then I think these are very dangerous steps unless they are taken with the consent of the people of the affected European states as it would represent a major departure from the way they are currently governed. There has been a worrying rise in populist and extremist parties throughout Europe over the last decade or so, accelerating with the economic crisis - see this report for instance with its interactive map (which strangely excludes Greece). If European politicians think this can be simply ignored or dismissed, or the parties and their supporters ridiculed ("fruitcakes") then they really ought to think again. Here is what the German playwright Carl Zuckmayer wrote later about Hitler: "We made fun of his poor German, his bombastic style, and were convinced that such a half-educated fool could never be taken seriously in Germany, a nation of professors and scholars, let alone the faintest chance of achieving leadership."

I agree that Churchill was a man of his time and at that time European Federalism was never on the agenda, and Britain still considered itself a 'world power'. In fact much of Europe was in ruins when he made his 'United States of Europe' speeches, and many Europeans had simple survival on their minds. The British themselves were on rations.

The simple fact is that Churchill, for all his undoubted faults and flaws, foresaw the future of an United States of Europe and encouraged its creation.

Britain no longer has an Empire, whatever Churchill's goals were in the circumstances of 1946, so it is surely inconceivable that Churchill would now be threatening to withdraw UK 'support' for European union just at the time when Britain (if it wishes to retain any sort of political and economic clout) has simply nowhere else to go?

[MrGongGong]

What IS the problem with "federalism" ?

fed·er·al
/ˈfed(ə)rəl/
Adjective
Having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs.
Of, relating to, or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation.

[Roehre]

What IS the problem with "federalism" ?

fed·er·al
/ˈfed(ə)rəl/
Adjective
Having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs.
Of, relating to, or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation.

for a good European example: the Federal Republic of Germany - and the model Berlin thinks can be applied to the Union member states.

[aeolium]

What IS the problem with "federalism" ?

fed·er·al
/ˈfed(ə)rəl/
Adjective
Having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs.
Of, relating to, or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation.

As with some other systems of government, there is nothing wrong with federalism provided that people are prepared to accept it (in democratic countries). And the big question is the division between federal powers and state powers (i.e. how much power is allocated to the federal authority). The federal system of, for instance, the USA, has important differences from one that might be embraced in Europe - perhaps the latter would be more of a confederation. In the USA most significant policies, relating to taxation, healthcare, foreign policy, the environment etc are formulated and executed at federal level, and of course the fiscal union operates at a federal level. A major difference in America also is that it is both a federal system and a nation-state (as is Germany and Spain). A Texan or a Californian will still feel above all American. It is unlikely that many people in Europe will think of themselves firstly as European and only secondarily as Dutch, or Swedish or whatever. That sense of identity is important when considering the workability of a federal system.

The reason why it is important that any federal project in Europe should command popular support seems fairly evident to me. The rise of populist and nationalist parties in the last decade, particularly since the recession, threatens the European consensus and the centrist politics that have dominated Europe in the last 25 years or so. In living memory there have been at least five fascist or authoritarian regimes in European countries and several others have recently emerged from totalitarian occupation. Democracy is fragile and it is unsurprising if people who have experienced foreign occupation and undemocratic regimes are unwilling readily to surrender powers away from the national level. The focus is so often on Britain that it is easy to forget that the sense of unease and dislocation from EU institutions is felt in many parts of Europe. Some ridicule or ignore the rise of the populist parties; others, like the think-tank Demos, try to understand what is driving those who are attracted to these parties (I recommend their 2011 report). Unless those who argue for Europe can understand and counter the appeal of these populist and nationalist parties then it will reach the point where they become dominant in one or more national governments and at that point there is a real danger to the whole European project.

[MrGongGong]

I think that many people, in the UK, have a rather insecure and fragile sense of who "we" are.
When I go to Ireland people will quickly identify with the county they are from yet still feel Irish , even though they have the single currency etc
I'm not sure that the "thinking of yourself FIRST" as something then "second" as something else IS really how people are ?
It's interesting that the virulent anti EU folk (or should they be "geography deniers ?") seem to have switched their focus away from the idea that somehow we become "less" British if we don't have a "German" (ish) queen on our currency and more towards the view that somehow one should only do things that benefit one financially.......... both of which seem rather sad and unimaginative

[aeolium]

I'm not sure that the "thinking of yourself FIRST" as something then "second" as something else IS really how people are ?

I think it is how some people are. The Demos report suggested that one of the strongest reasons driving people to support a populist party was fear about loss of cultural identity, much stronger than concerns about the economy or even the EU. Why don't you give it a read - there's plenty of interesting stuff there? And it's based on opinions from people all over Europe, not just in Britain.

the virulent anti EU folk (or should they be "geography deniers ?")

I'm not quite clear why you keep harping on about geography here. Geography does not determine how peoples are to be governed - that is down to history, politics and the peoples themselves. Africa is a continent, but does that mean that we say it should be governed as a single federal state, or confederation of nation states?

both of which seem rather sad and unimaginative

Perhaps the most virulent anti-EU folk, who tend to be drawn more often than not from the poor and the unemployed and not those for whom the EU might have been devised - the business and professional, polylingual classes and the well-off retired - are indeed more "sad and unimaginative". On the other hand, it could be argued that those who created the Eurozone without foreseeing the terrible consequences of setting up a common currency while allowing large country imbalances and with no allowance for fiscal transfers between richer and poorer countries were also very unimaginative, though the sadness is all reserved for the victims.

[MrGongGong]

I think it is how some people are. The Demos report suggested that one of the strongest reasons driving people to support a populist party was fear about loss of cultural identity, much stronger than concerns about the economy or even the EU. Why don't you give it a read - there's plenty of interesting stuff there? And it's based on opinions from people all over Europe, not just in Britain.

Thanks
I might just do that
without a sense of what your cultural identity IS it's hard to know what a "loss" means
which is not helped by nebulous nonsense
for many the EU is the thing (on the cheese riff !) which preserves cultural identity
the "connectedness" of our cultures in Europe is obvious if you listen to music

(the geography thing is a joke ..... some people seem to think that the UK isn't part of Europe )

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

there was a time when people thought that chunks of Europe were part of the uk in its then manifestation ....

[aeolium]

for many the EU is the thing (on the cheese riff !) which preserves cultural identity
the "connectedness" of our cultures in Europe is obvious if you listen to music

I think cultural identity is a very nebulous concept these days. After all, this country has had hundreds of different cultural influences even in the last couple of generations, many of them non-European in origin. I would have thought listening to music would indicate the connectedness of our culture to many other cultures from within and outside Europe.

Perhaps the whole European fortress idea ("let's keep the non-Europeans out while we can move around freely inside the fortress") is itself a retrograde idea, a denial of the interconnectedness of all cultures, particularly as it in part represents an abnegation of European responsibility for colonisation and exploitation of non-European cultures over recent centuries.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The Cyprus 10% tithe on savings couldn't happen here could it? Our government wouldn't dream of of raiding public sector pension pots in order to pay for its own pet projects, such as the already discredited free schools. Things like that only happened here in the days of Bad King John.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well the Tgraf would have a view

Savers in British banks and building societies have been stealthily robbed of more than £43bn of the real value of their savings since the Bank of England froze interest rates at 0.5pc four years ago. That's the total shrinkage of bank and building society depositors' purchasing power caused by inflation exceeding frozen interest rates, according to calculations by the pressure group Save Our Savers, following similar calculations by Yorkshire Building Society that the average saver has lost £2,500 in real terms since the credit crisis began.