On Friday David Cameron will make his big speech on Europe. There is only one thing now which will satisfy the Eurosceptics: a firm promise – and not just a ‘cast-iron guarantee’ – for a referendum on Europe.
The speech – which must address the challenge of UKIP, mainly to the Tories – comes as the UK marks 40 years’ of membership of what is now the European Union. Lord Ashcroft’s recent polling of 20,000 Britons suggests that it is not Europe, but immigration which is encouraging Conservatives to switch to UKIP. However, the next national electoral challenge will be the European Elections in 2014. In such a poll, held under proportional representation, UKIP’s simple ‘EU out’ message gained them 16.5 percent of the vote in 2009.
Many Eurosceptics say to me: ‘we joined the Common Market and now it is a European Union’. I reply, as a life-long pro-European, that much has changed since we joined, and Brussels has adjusted accordingly. Indeed, its leading role in the change from a continent divided by the Iron Curtain to a ‘Europe whole and free’ is the reason the Oslo committee awarded the EU the Nobel Peace Prize last month.
I am convinced that rising Euroscepticism in Britain is largely caused by the economic crisis, which many blame on the EU. This is wrong, because it was the bankers and national governments who created the disaster and broke the Euro rules, not Brussels.
Last autumn Poland’s Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski appealed openly to British Eurosceptics:
As a Thatcherite free-marketeer, I have no doubt being in Europe is good for Britain.
Now one of the most potent and vigorous pro-Europeans, Sikorski said:
But please don’t expect us to help you to wreck or paralyse the EU. Don’t underestimate our determination not to return to the politics of the 20th century. You were not occupied. Most of us on the Continent were. We’ll do almost anything to prevent it happening again. Europe’s leaders will step up integration to make the euro work. We believe the euro will survive, because it is in members’ interests for it to survive.
Indeed, at a pre-Christmas summit in Brussels, EU leaders did agree to step up integration to make the Euro work better. In particular they gave the European Central Bank supervisory powers over the EU’s larger banks. This coincided with Standard and Poors’ uprating of Greece by six points and the payment of an important tranche of EU aid to Athens.
While the present package of financial reforms agreed by the EU recently do not in themselves require treaty change, the expectation is that the next stage of EU integration will be on the cards by 2015, backed by a new treaty.
The question is, will Cameron continue to kick the European can down the road, or he will finally make his position clear? I, for one, am ready for the fight, not least because one in ten jobs in Yorkshire & Humber depend on our EU membership.
* Edward McMillan-Scott was MEP for Yorkshire & Humber 1984 – 2014, Conservative then Liberal Democrat since 2010. He was Vice-President of the European Parliament for Democracy & Human Rights 2004 - 2014
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"Pass Brexit deal and fall behind Lib Dems, voters tell Corbyn in poll"
Six of the Best 837
Brexit is a national embarrassment
Best Albums of 2018
Tory group told to repay €535,000 to European Parliament
Some ick for you on a saturday morning
Katharine Pindar
frankie
David Becket
David Raw
Richard Underhill
4 Comments
Poland’s Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski appealed openly to British Eurosceptics:
“……….You were not occupied. Most of us on the Continent were”.
Be patient Radek. Times have moved on. They don’t invade with tanks and guns anymore. They do it with a troika of bankers, plus contract law.
Ask the Greeks.
“There is only one thing now which will satisfy the Eurosceptics: a firm promise – and not just a ‘cast-iron guarantee’ – for a referendum on Europe.”
Something the Lib Dems (but not the Tories) used to promise…
“I am convinced that rising Euroscepticism in Britain is largely caused by the economic crisis, which many blame on the EU. This is wrong, because it was the bankers and national governments who created the disaster and broke the Euro rules, not Brussels.”
Is this really the best we can expect from our Euro MPs? Vague and inaccurate assertion with no evidence to back it up. If this were an undergraduate essay it would receive a B- grading and the student submitting it would be asked to do more background reading and present better evidence to support their argument in future.
No word here about the role of the Euro in creating massive imbalances and divergence in national economies within the Eurozone, nothing about the way governments are now being told what to do so now have no independent fiscal policy.
“While the present package of financial reforms agreed by the EU recently do not in themselves require treaty change, the expectation is that the next stage of EU integration will be on the cards by 2015, backed by a new treaty.”
This is EXACTLY what I have argued in previous threads, but I have been earnestly assured that this is not going to happen and there is no treaty change in the offing. Now one of our own Euro MPs tells us that there is.
What is the truth about treaty change? Is it going to happen, or not? If it is, does it mean further political integration? If so, what say will UK citizens be given about this?
Of course there are many things wrong with the EU. Introducing the single currency when each member has its own central bank, finance minister and economic issues was one (shame so many Europhiles made the mistake of backing it – we should all be grateful to a Mr G Brown).
But I think the huge amount of dislike towards the EU, and misinformation, boils down to two words “Rupert” and “Murdoch”. He personally hates British membership of the EU (perhaps understandably for an Australian of his generation). Other Tory papers felt they had to compete (only the Express was virulently anti-EU in the old days) and it’s always easier to condemn something than to present a reasoned argument.