Read: THE EU DEBATE – WHERE IS LABOUR?

From: Labour Affairs: Editorials

Date: February, 2013

By: Editorial

THE EU DEBATE – WHERE IS LABOUR?

THE EU DEBATE – WHERE IS LABOUR?

The most obvious fact about the UK and the EU is that Britain’s membership and why it should remain in it, is, after 40 years of membership of the EEC cum EU an issue that is still a defining issue in British politics. This speaks volumes. There is not such an issue in other Member States and that also speaks volumes. Britain clearly has an endemic existential problem with Europe that may be approaching a resolution. For Britain, problems in Europe are to be exploited, for Europeans they are there to be solved.

This is the context for Cameron’s much hyped speech of 23 January. No doubt Obama’s intervention was a quite a shock and a clear warning that Britain’s status in US eyes would plummet if there was a serious move to withdraw from the EU. Out of the EU’s favour is one thing but out of US’s favour is quite another. That is the road to the political wilderness for Britain.

But despite this warning Cameron ensured that the existential problem of the EU will probably last for over four more years at least in UK politics. If he was serious about resolving it he could begin his renegotiations right away and have the issue decided at the next election or before. The basic content of what he is demanding will not change. If there was an issue of the UK joining the Euro that would be a major factor but that is now ruled out forever. The real issue is and remains the elemental political one of whether the UK wants a positive or negative relationship with the EU.

But Cameron wants it every which way. It is now for the EU leaders to make their minds up about this ‘in, out, shake it all about’ approach by the UK. Their attitude is what will determine the outcome. Are they up to it or not is the only question.

Recently, there was a much more important speech than Cameron’s that deserves looking at as it states the facts squarely. It was given by Tony Blair. Blair is leading the argument to stay in the EU and it is worth looking at his case as it shows the strengths and weaknesses of what the issue is all about for Britain. Being free of government responsibility at the moment he can speak more plainly and honestly than Cameron can and that makes for a better understanding of what the problem is with the UK and Europe.

He gave a talk at Chatham House recently that involved blunt speaking on the issue:

“First, take a big step back from crisis and ask: what is the long-term rationale for Europe today? If there isn’t one, of course, then why would we want to be part of it? However, the truth is the rationale for Europe today is stronger not weaker than it was back 66 years ago when the project began. But it is different. Then the rationale was peace. Today it is power.” (Europe, Britain and Business – Beyond the Crisis, Chatham House, 28 November 2012)

And he elaborated further:

“The case for the EU today therefore is one that can be made for all European nations including Britain. It is that, in this new world, to leverage power, you need the heft of the EU. This is true in economics, in trade, in defense, foreign policy and global challenges such as climate change. It gives us a weight collectively that on our own we lack. It is not complex. It really is that simple. I rather like the idealism of Europe’s early founders. But actually this has nothing to do with idealism. It is brutal real politik.”

And

“Politics at the top international level is about power. Separate us out from the decision-making structure of Europe and we will immediately relegate ourselves in the league of nations. I believe our other alliances would not blossom but decline.”

The world knows very well what Tony Blair and Britain does with their power in the world and what his brutal real politik actually means. Brutal is a most appropriate word. Just look at the record of the spreading wreckage across the Muslim world at present. Britain wants to be in the EU to do more of the same wherever possible.

The crucial thing about his argument is that it is the same argument that Harold Macmillan made over 60 years ago when he first broached the subject of British entry. He just expressed it differently. Macmillan had been taught a lesson by the US and the USSR at Suez in ’56 that Britain’s Empire days were numbered despite all its brutal attempts to maintain it in Africa and elsewhere. After opposing and countering the original EEC by any and every means Macmillan and his chief Whip, Heath, realised that they would not succeed in this and decided that it was better to join them when you can’t beat them.

Macmillan dressed up the argument as Britain being to the EEC what Greece was to Rome. In other words the real power had shifted to Europe and the only future was to try to lead and shape that new power in the world. It was to be a new vehicle for a new kind of Empire. It was not ‘joining Europe’ but utilizing it for Britain’s ambitions. De Gaulle and others saw through this and would not have it. But Britain was desperate and kept trying and eventually got their way in a post de Gaulle Europe.

After a few years under Heath Britain reverted to an overt hostility towards the Europe project and succeeded in diverting it from an internally focused, integrating and independent path to an ever expanding, globalist, free trade entity that would slavishly follow an Anglo American orientation.

Luckily the Franco German axis launched the Euro as a response to German reunification and to keep the new Germany anchored in Europe. To develop properly as a currency it has to focus on internal integration. Few things are more important and internal to people than the security of the money in their pockets. It focuses the mind wonderfully.

Britain has never and will never be a part of this development which is now the essence of the European project. This is succeeding and Britain is therefore desperate again and Blair personifies that desperation. In his view Britain has ‘missed the boat’ again. Britain is throwing away the opportunities provided by this development for more power in Europe and the world. This horrifies him. But he knows Britain cannot really be part of the essential European project by not being in the Eurozone and never will. Hence the British dilemma about Europe. Hence the double talk and convoluted neither in nor out position that Cameron keeps on about.

Blair desperately appeals to Britain not to throw away its ties with the EU but what he is appealing for is essentially an alliance with Europe rather than joining it. Britain wants to lead but without participating in what is now the real work of Europe project, the Eurozone integration.

Alliance is the most benign way to describe the proposed relationship but it could more accurately be described as a Trojan horse for the US and as a parasite on Europe’s success. That is why Europeans are not likely to be so dumb as to see it as anything but destructive for Europe to have this semi-detached member as a leading member who can only have ulterior motives from a European integrationist perspective. Britain is not in the boiler house with them building the Euro but waiting outside to utilize the boiler when it’s working. If Europeans today have not learned any lessons about Britain at this stage they never will.

But they may never summon up the will and the courage to show Britain the door as the original creators of the European project did and therefore the most likely outcome is that Britain will remain a nuisance member of the EU that will debase it into a trading area of less and less political importance which will wither on the vine. Fortunately that will not now matter so much as the Euro develops which will necessitate more and real integration whatever happens to the EU as an institution. It may be a case of ‘the EU is dead, long live Europe.’

It is also worth noting that Blair’s commitment to Europe has nothing whatever to do with the virtues of the European social market. He agrees with the Eurosceptics that all that is for the birds.

He says:

“Changes to the labour market, pensions, welfare and the way the State operates are necessary in all Western countries for reasons of demography, technology and external competition. The European social model has to change radically for Europe to prosper. Many of these arguments over the years have lain most comfortably in the mouths of Eurosceptics. They were never the only ones to make them by the way. My speeches on Europe as Prime Minister were littered with references to the pro-Europe, pro-reform case. But the truth is: much of the criticism levelled at Europe has been justified and is shown to be justified now.”

From any Labour interest this is the crucial issue and Cameron stated it in his speech as a central reason for ‘renegotiation’. He said:

“Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that’s been visited on our businesses. These problems have been around too long. And the progress in dealing with them, far too slow.”

These issues are certainly not naturally occurring phenomena - they occur naturally in the absence of an alternative. But where is the Labour and Trade Union opposition to this Blair/Cameron approach? It exists only as a bit of bluster and debating rhetoric by some Labour spokespeople but it is not central to any Labour Party/Trade Union opposition to the impending prospect of a UK exit from the EU. But a full blooded defence of the European Social Market that justifies staying in the EU? Will pigs fly?

Articles

Athol Books

Other Sites

Subscribe Securely To
Athol Books Magazines

THE EU DEBATE – WHERE IS LABOUR?

Articles

Athol Books

Other Sites

Subscribe Securely To Athol Books Magazines

THE EU DEBATE – WHERE IS LABOUR?

Subscribe Securely To
Athol Books Magazines