Many voices express concern that pro-EU activists should avoid emphasising the dire outcome of Brexit because, as we learnt during the Scottish referendum debate, concentrating on the negative makes for a dismal campaign.
Yet how can we not point out that a Brexit, with its consequent uncertain trade agreements especially with the UK’s major partner, would be catastrophic? But yes, we must also give a positive message. Proclaiming past EU achievements doesn’t seem to play well; too many people take them for granted, believe they would have happened anyway and in any case find them boring. However, everyone who supports continuing membership acknowledges the EU’s many flaws. Why not tackle these failings head-on and make improving the EU Britain’s mission? With its Liberal and Social Democrat tenets, LibDems are particularly well placed to develop an optimistic and constructive reform agenda.
Britain should be a standard bearer to achieve a truly open market. We should encourage the Commission to do more against anti-competitive practices. This is not impossible; we’ve already seen the Commission tackle the phone companies and right now (to cite the Financial Times £) it is “preparing a regulatory crackdown against rip-off pricing by national postal operators on cross-border parcel deliveries”. Yet, as any cross-border internet shopper knows, suppliers continue widely to discriminate against consumers in other EU countries. We should encourage them to shower the Commission, as well as their MEPs, with examples of such practice.
In parallel, we must require from other EU governments the removal of the many non-tariff barriers still in place in contravention of EU treaty intent.
Britain should also lead in ensuring treaty provisions concerning citizens’ rights are applied equally. For example, discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin is still rife in certain states (working in France, I am particularly worried about the effects of its complete lack of ethnic monitoring; and its appalling treatment of Roma is not unique in the EU). We should require that a pan-EU body monitors and highlights treaty discrepancies.
Freedom of Information is also a subject Britain knows a lot about and we should insist that it be applied everywhere. For example, a large body of EU law is decided in what is known as ‘Trilogues’, where a handful of ministers, members of the Commission and MEPs thrash out laws in complete secrecy. This may be a way of doing things in some continental countries, but it is against principles of liberty to which, at least nominally, member states have signed up.
So, I would advocate Britain seize the flag of liberty and demand, in accordance with EU treaties, that it be allowed to fly freely everywhere. Doesn’t that sound like a positive message?
* Alan Depauw is a party member. He was a senior HR professional with hi-tech international groups in the UK, Belgium and France. He now works as a voluntary advocate for electronic cigarettes and is currently Vice-President of Aiduce, the French-speaking independent association of e-cigarette users.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Have resignations led to a rethink?
nigel hunter
Tom Reeve
Chloe
Abrial Jerram
12 Comments
Hi Alan,
I completely agree with those ideas, but for me the case for EU membership is very simple. The EU isn’t perfect. It needs to be improved. However, leaving the metaphorical table and becoming isolated will not solve that; the refugee crisis will not be solved by Britain going it alone. The only way to make the EU change is by leading from the front and making change. We are an economically and diplomatically powerful nation. We can get EU reform for the benefit of all member states. However, having one foot in and one foot out like the Tories have won’t make that happen.
If we want a reformed EU we must be at the centre of that reform.
“Many voices express concern that pro-EU activists should avoid emphasising the dire outcome of Brexit”
And the reason for avoiding emphasising the dire outcome of Brexit, is because it’s been shown time and again to be hysterical fear mongering nonsense.
The functioning of the EU is a bit like that old joke : Where does a grizzly bear sleep?
Anywhere it wants.
The fundamental mistake pro EU(ers) make, is in not understanding that [it], [the EU], doesn’t even think there is anything wrong. It doesn’t see any need to modify its thinking or behaviour or structures. It doesn’t see anything other than full integration into a Europe of United States as the answer. It views individual countries sovereignty as a relic to be eliminated,.. and more fundamentally, it has no democratic pressure points, to enable an average voter to stop,.. stall,.. or make any meaningful modifications to that closed institutional undemocratic process.
At least Cameron has a small 12 MP majority, disgruntled backbenchers, a belligerent House of Lords, and Scottish issues, to give him some sleepless nights. [ With voter influence in all but the HoL ]
In contrast what process or EU democratic mechanism available to an average voter, would give Juncker sleepless nights? Answer : None, because there is no voter applicable democratic accountability whatsoever in the functioning of the EU, and certainly no electoral issues for Junker to feel troubled about. The EU ‘machine’, like the grizzly bear will do just as it pleases and there is nothing the average voter can do about it.
Except of course to wave goodbye, and exit their self aggrandized madhouse, to seek freedom, and regain sovereignty, and self determination.
Thanks for that article, Alan. I find articles like yours, which acknowledge what can be improved in the EU, and show how we can make those improvements, far more uplifting than articles that pretend all is well.
OK, so we vote, whenever the EU referendum takes place, to get out. Can the ‘out’ brigade positively GUARANTEE that there is a world out there that will really want to do the kind of business with us that being part of the EU offers? Don’t they realise that Britannia no longer rules economic waves? This is 2015; not 1815.
I still reckon that there are quite a few EU member states, particularly in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, that, if truth be known, are looking to us to take on the vested interests and, if we are successful, will join us in forging the kind of organisation we thought we were joining in the first place. ‘Ever closer union’ as per the Treaty of Rome can mean many things, not all of them political.
I wholeheartedly agree with the article and also Thomas’ comment. It is true that the ‘Remain’ campaign must make sure that voters in the EU referendum are fully-aware exactly what the risks and dangers of Brexit are, and it is also true that polling shows that undecided and open-to-switching voters are more likely to vote ‘Remain’ based on statements showing the adverse impacts of Brexit than on statements showing the positive opportunities offered by the EU (Survation, 30 Nov – 3 Dec, base of 4,325 such voters).
Despite this, there is an urgent and desperate need for there to be a positive campaign backing the ‘Remain’ side too. As Alan notes, “concentrating on the negative makes for a dismal campaign”, and although it might persuade, it won’t convince.
It’s the politics of fear versus the politics of hope – our ‘island mentality’ versus the zeal for a freer and fairer modern Europe of individual opportunity.
I’m glad to see that the Liberal Democrats have already taken a positive approach to the EU referendum with the “lead not leave” campaign and through emphasising points such as Thomas’. My worry is, however, that although the Lib Dems have been very vocal about the benefits of EU membership, this hasn’t come through in the mainstream media (yet). Without this positive campaign., I fear that the result could return a narrow ‘Remain’ vote or even a ‘Leave’ vote, with all of the uncertainty that both of those events could bring.
Although his views don’t seem to resonate much with British electorate, I’m very much of a fan of Guy Verhofstadt’s messages (his speech at the Opening Ceremony of the ALDE Party Congress in November 2013 was particularly inspiring) about an EU with liberal and democratic reforms that isn’t so bureaucratic and that doesn’t obsess on regulations, but that leads the world on big issues which national governments can’t resolve on their own (climate change, terrorism, military aggression, the refugee crisis, etc.).
Perhaps some inspiration can be drawn from these messages, and provide the frame for big, bold and radical messages of hope for the UK’s future within the EU. Crucially, these are key messages that can also set apart the Liberal Democrats from Cameron’s Tories and Labour, as neither of them are nor will be enthusiastic and convinced enough to campaign so boldly and so radically for such an EU.
Indigo: Of course there is a mechanism that voters can use to hold EU lawmakers to account. We elect members to the European Parliament every 4 years. Clegg may have let Farage get away with asserting that the EU is undemocratic and pretending that the European Parliament doesn’t exist (even though at that time we were in the middle of an election campaign to the European Parliament) but I have no intention of letting anyone get away with that.
The European Parliament in some ways does a better job of holding the other EU lawmaking bodies to account than the UK Parliament at holding our government to account. The EU separation of powers means that the Commission cannot ever rely on any bloc in the European Parliament to support its agenda. There is no ‘payroll vote’, and MEPs are expected to scrutinise the behaviour of Commissioners and national governments in the Council, whatever the party labels of the people involved. Party discipline is much weaker in the European Parliament than in most national parliaments. So MEPs are much more independent than Westminster MPs, more so even than the House of Lords. It’s not perfect; I absolutely agree with the OP that the trilogue system needs reforming, for instance. But do NOT say that there is no way that voters can hold the Commission to account, because this is NOT true.
“Of course there is a mechanism that voters can use to hold EU lawmakers to account”
If only that were the case Alex, but what you say has no factual bearing. MEP’s can only vote on policies put to them from on high, [an unelected high!]. Fact is, they [MEP’s], cannot put forward any policies or issues that matter to their constituencies or their individual countries. Although we might vote every 4 years on MEP’s, the reality is that those MEP’s have absolutely no say over EU policy. So it is factually true to say that voters have zero impact on EU policy. It, [EU], is an unresponsive and unelected machine that steamrollers over any democracy or accountability to the average voter. The main truism to grasp at this point, is that to the EU machine, the voter [and democracy!], is an irrelevance.
Alex. Here is a very simple test for the validity of democracy.
What is it that puts a furrowed brow on an elected politicians face? When a politician is worried about the possible result of an election you can say that you have a ‘clear line of sight’ to democracy. If a voter choice does not put that furrowed brow on a politicians face, [i.e. Juncker], you do not have anything even close to resembling democracy. And so it is, that these self appointed heads of the EU Super State have no such worries. Indeed, why should they worry? They cannot be de-selected or be electorally and democratically rejected by their electorate.?
So it is factually correct that from a voter perspective, there is no democratic accountability in the EU. Which part of this last sentence is difficult?
The essence of this article is that “reform” must be a continuing process within the EU and this includes measures to improve democratic influence albeit I don’t think addressing the democratic deficit would at all satisfy the indigos of this world who simply want out. He says “It doesn’t see anything other than full integration into a Europe of United States as the answer.” I think he means a United States of Europe – something which some idealists may once have looked for but which went out of the window when the major expansion to 28 states (and counting) took place. Few seem to have noticed the statement of conclusions issued after the June 2014 meeting of European leaders. Clause 27 says
“The UK raised some concerns related to the future development of the EU. These concerns will need to be addressed. In this context, the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, “while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further. ”
Note this does not refer merely to the pace of integration. The statement quoted above unquestionably goes beyond that – clearly fuelled by the situation created by the existence of the eurozone and the likely very long term decision of the UK and others to remain outside that. For that reason Cameron will have little difficulty in achieving a British opt-out from “ever closer union”. There is everything to play for in the continuance of British EU membership and severe risk in bailing out.
For me, there is a very strong liberal argument for remaining in the EU – rights. This is, fundamentally, why a certain type of Tory (and Labourite, for that matter) dislikes the EU so much: because it prevents national governments from implementing authoritarian restrictions on individuals; it restricts the (still extremely strong) UK executive from having complete and absolute power. For those of us who value liberty, and who do not see civil, political and human rights as being ‘granted’ by national governments or the crown (in fact quite the opposite) the risk of having the rights of EU citizenship being stripped away from us should be the guiding principle of our support for remaining. I’d like to see the Remain campaign go on the offensive about this: ‘These are the rights the Leave campaign wish to see stripped from you’ would make a good poster…
How many people realize that the single market with all its faults was championed and forced through by St Margaret during her time as Prime Minister?
How many members of the public understand that it is only through E.U legislation that British beaches are now safe from sewage etc thus improving the safety of all those using them.
We need to work on getting the European accounts audited however in general I personally believe that the U.K has beniffited by being in Europe and I know that Europe has been improved by our membership and hard work and it would be a tragedy to throw it all away.
@ian james
I am not sure what you mean by “we need to work on getting the European accounts audited.” I fear you have been misled by one of the biggest lies perpetrated by the anti EU media. Here is a passage from a report by the “European Expets” in September 2015 –
For every year since 2007 the ECA [European Court of Auditors] has given a positive, ‘clean’ opinion on the Union’s accounts (in the years before that the ECA qualified its approval of the accounts). The statement of assurance for 2013, published in November 2014, says: In the Court’s opinion, the consolidated accounts of the European Union for the year ended 31 December 2013 present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Union as at 31 December 2013, the results of its operations, its cash flows, and the changes in net assets for the year then ended, in accordance with the Financial Regulation and with accounting rules based on internationally accepted accounting standards for the public sector.
Although the ECA habitually includes in its annual reports a few observations on ways in which the accounts might be further developed and improved, the claim that the ECA ‘refuses to sign off the Commission’s accounts’ is incorrect and misleading. “
@indigo: You are talking absolute rubbish about MEPs. They can amend and veto legislation. They can sack the commission. They can also request new legislation to be drafted. Although Westminster MPs can more easily initiate legialation, in practice the legislative agenda is controlled by the government, and (as seen several times recently) if the government doesn’t like a Private Members Bill, its ministers just talk the bill out.