In thinking about why I am so passionately pro-European and so keen to see the Lib-Dems play an increasingly important role I first reflected on how hard it is in the UK, even in 2008, to ‘come out’ as pro-European. The cloying effect of the anti-EU media, combined with still lukewarm (at best) UK government attitudes – “We are supportive of the EU so long as it does what we want” – makes it difficult to overcome the braying, usually inaccurate, stance of UKIP and other ‘Eurosceptics’.
So why be positive about the EU? Well, in my case, it may be in part because I was born in Llanllwchaiarn, a small village just outside Newtown in Powys, Wales. The Montgomeryshire constituency has, of course, a very noble history as a strong Liberal seat. However, because of the often sneering approach to Wales and things Welsh in the 1950s and ’60s I joined Plaid Cymru and campaigned for Welsh independence, not really hopeful it would happen but to strike a blow for disregarded non-mainstream people of the UK. Wales had been conquered by England a very long time ago, and then began a process of neglect and sidelining (despite the fact that the laws of Hywel Dda predated English similar laws and Wales had an extremely rich linguistic and cultural tradition, though struggled economically and had to rely on non-Welsh investors and entrepreneurs).
So, what has this to do with the EU?
From the 1960s, and a time spent in Italy, I began to appreciate that there are different ways of thinking, of doing and being, rather than just those of the UK. I strongly supported Ted Heath in what was an heroic and boldly successful application to join the EU. His was an important vision, one suspects crafted as a consequence of Heath being part of the relief of German concentration camps.
The real triumph was, though, that small nations, ethnic groups and other unconsidered minorities could gain influence within the EU and have their voice heard. Of course, there are probably valid complaints that the ‘big’ EU states have undue power but I believe that not only Wales but, more relevantly, the ALDE group in the European Parliament that UK Lib Dems so strongly influence do ‘punch above their weight’. This opportunity to promote different ideas, to join like-minded groups and individuals from other states, and to seek and then cement common values, is something unique to the EU.
I often work in Australia and parts of Asia. Many there envy the EU, its aspirations, and its essential support for ordinary people. Of course, it does not always look like this. I work much of my time in Brussels. I can see how complex, esoteric and remote the actions and language of the EU can appear. ‘European English’ needs effective translation – how many ordinary UK citizens understand “subsidiarity”, the “social agenda” and “social dialogue”? They need the Lib Dems to more effectively bridge the communication gaps!
The Lib Dems are in a unique position in the UK as the only genuinely internationist and pro-European major political party. They, alone, have foretold the catastrophe that is our debt-fuelled economy. They, alone, have wholeheartedly extolled the virtues of genuine European and international co-operation. The voice of the party’s MEPs needs to be heard more strongly and needs to address UK voters in a direct, non-jargonistic way.
I feel, with the European Parliament elections of 2009 looming, the Lib Dems need to have courage, connect ordinary voters with the EU, put the ‘village’ of Brussels behind them, and focus on the basic issuers that citizens care about – such as jobs, working time, basic workplace rights, open markets and opportunity. Many voters will be battered by next summer. Let the Lib Dems speak to them directly and win.
* Professor Patricia Leighton is the Jean Monnet Professor in European Law at the University of Glamorgan.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
13 Comments
Sure, the project of working together across Europe on a range of issues is a good one. When the EU does manage to reach consensus on some issues a lot of good can result.
But your piece has nothing to say about the actual governing process of the EU- probably because theres not much good to say about it. Nothing to say about the EU’s spending- probably because half of it is on crop subsidies. Nothing to say about its role in organising tariffs against the third world.
The EU is vulnerable to criticism becuase of its very real problems. We aren’t cheerleaders, we are a political group working for change- and while we must defend European co-operation, we cannot let this stop us from also bringing up the EU’s major problems and demanding real and huge change.
Nice to hear there are now more Lib Dems at Uni Glam: Robin Fawcett and I were about the only liberal voices in the trendy lefty desert in the late 80s!
Sorry dont agree. I think we should still leave the EU.
Excellent article. We should hear a bit more of this from national politicians.
It’s great that people want to run things in a different way in different countries. That’s why the EU is such a destructive force as it seeks to harmonise every aspect of life across the continent.
I get slightly annoyed that whenever someone speaks out in favour of the EU, they’ll almost inevitably get criticised for not also pointing out the failings of the institutions – as though every pro Europe statement needs some standard disclaimer attached.
Do we really need to add these criticisms every time? It’s not as though there’s a lack sources criticising the EU and thoe attacking it are never required to balance their pieces in this way – I’d like to imagine that it might not be necessary explicitly to spell out every time that support for the EU does not equate to blind unquestioning devotion to its every facet.
Variations of this trick abound in politics (and can be seen in spades in debates about the Gaza situation) and reasonable people often seem to get caught out by them.
Perhaps so, but I think writing an entire article about the EU that says nothing about anything the EU does leaves little else as a response.
The article wasn’t about why anything the EU did was good, but calling it good in a general sense and asking us to defend it to the public. I think a better approach is to acknowledge the very real problems and put to the public that we can benefit from the EU and fix them.
We should bring to peoples attention the many good things it does and has done, as well- and that should be the lead in our pro-european arguments, not the vauge vision points offered in this piece. Examples convince more than “vision”.
In our European elections this year, there will be only two issues which matter.
The first is effective Europen cooperation in the international economic re-thinking and re-jigging that will be needed to get the whole world out of the recession. As Martin Wolf says today in the Financial Times , even the USA cannot do enough to pull itself out of the recession without the rest of the world pitching in.
The second is serious effort to reform the way the European Union works. That means facing what is now wrong about the EU:
“The evident failings of Europe’s present institutions are, in summary:
1. Many officials of the Commission display, almost proudly, the symptoms of a bureaucracy which maximises its own satisfactions. That is to say, they are very comfortable, avoid accountability, are rather ineffective, are expensive for what they do, and show persistent tendencies to tolerate corruption. The bureaucracy needs much more demanding leadership, management and oversight.
2. A shortage of effective control of activities and of expenditure.
3. An apparatus for reaching political compromises that is cumbersome, not consistently framed, and slow.
4. Institutional arrangements for putting forward the arguments of common interest have become diffuse and weak, as much within the institutions as in relation to the peoples of Europe and the wider world.”
The need for action on the second issue to achieve results on the first is obvious.
I am not a “passionate European”. It has just seemed natural to me all my adult life that europeans belong together in a diverse world, and I am one of them. But we europeans need effective coordinated European action too badly to put up with what Brussels now provides.
I do not vote for the Lib Dems in European elections, and I am not alone in Liberal Democrat party members in this.
The party as a whole needs to justify its desire to put more power in the hands of a distant, opaque, undemocratic and corrupt institution, when it claims to believe in devolution of power to the lowest levels.
That said, I do applaud Chris Davies’ public efforts to highlight and correct the corruption in the EU. He does us credit as an MEP.
The comments above from Dave, David and Tinter have said nearly everything I wanted to say.
I think it’s very sad that the principled sympathies of “pro-Europeans” like Prof. Leighton lead them to naively follow the dictats of a corrupt, centralising elite which does everything it can to suppress democracy and avoid accountablity.
One day liberals might wake up to this reality.
Lib Dems are all at sea over the EU.
Yes, of course I support the desire to see the peoples and nations of Europe work together in a coherent political structure to achieve our common aims. But that is not at all the same as supporting the existing EU which represents just one particular notion of how this should be organised – and not a very coherent one at that!
As other have commented, the EU is arrogant, remote, wasteful and corrupt. Its disregard for small nations that vote the ‘wrong’ way (most recently Ireland yet again!) is infamous, yet the Lib Dems seem committed to supporting this nonsense.
The key question to ask – and answer – is ‘Who does what?’ Which level of government is responsible for which activities.
I would support a version of the EU where Brussels did only those things that ALL member countries agreed it should do – and only those things.
In the USA this approach is clearly spelt out in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution – namely that “The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Something similar in Europe would enable the Lib Dems to square support for devolution with support for the EU – it’s essentially the same solution at different levels.
“The party as a whole needs to justify its desire to put more power in the hands of a distant, opaque, undemocratic and corrupt institution, when it claims to believe in devolution of power to the lowest levels.” – Dave Page
I don’t think that’s the case at all – I very much doubt that anybody in the party wants to do that. We want to see an EU that is democratic, transparent, connected – and we’re never going to get that if we sit on the sidelines, carping. Power should be held at the appropriate levels – so matters like climate change, defence, trade, should all be held by the Union, as that’s the level where they can be effectively weilded. Whether a double yellow line is needed on Elm St should be held by a local council, or area committee. The truly useless level of government is Westminster – it’s too far removed from people to deal with local issues, and not strategic enough to cover the big things.
Like Professor Patricia Leighton, I am passionately pro-European on a cultural and spiritual level. I speak French, German and Italian and my partner is Italian.
However, on a political level, Europe is a mess and I wouldn’t touch their systems of government with a barge-pole. Italy’s in particular is an abomination. Until you read other people’s history and understand their daily lives, you don’t realise how precious some of our traditions of law-making and justice are.
The Lib Dems need to move beyond their dewy-eyed “I love Europe” moment and consider in concrete terms where the current direction of the EU is heading: fully-fledged political union. Unless they can explain to the public how Britain can carry on along that path without losing its identity, independence and precious-won freedoms, then Europe will always be a major vote-loser for them.