Here’s your starter for ten in our weekend slot where we throw up an idea or thought for debate…
With the looming debt crisis in the Eurozone and Eurosceptics from across the political divide baying for blood, the LDV weekend debate couldn’t resist the pressure any longer.
So, with people openly talking about the possibility of the end of the Euro as we know it, and Europe seemingly in crisis, are Lib Dem Ministers taking the right decisions for the party and the country as a whole?
The party has long been proud to proclaim itself the most pro-European of them all but can we and should we sustain that in the current political climate?
Recent opinion polls have led certain well-known commentators to suggest UKIP is on the verge of overtaking us. Is it just a flash in the pan or a fundamental shift in the country’s attitude to Europe?
And should Nick Clegg still be leading the charge against Tory Eurosceptics when the issue is so unpopular with voters?
Post your comments below…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
59 Comments
Lib Dems are not too pro-European but they are too pro-EU (in the same way that Euroscepticism and anti-Europeanism are not the same thing). They may think that a Europhile stance is consistent with liberalism and internationalism, but actually the EU is neither liberal or democratic. Regulations, corruption, unelected beauracrats in the European Commission who earn more than President Obama and have the sole right to propose laws should not sit well with a liberal or democratic party.
And being against EU does not mean isolation with the rest of Europe. Anyone who think our trade or our relations with Europe would suffer should simply look at Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.
I think there is room in the UK political landscape for a party which is in favour of European co-operation. The Tories are becoming ever more fervently anti-European – and let’s not kid ourselves: ‘Eurosceptic’ is too mild a term – and Labour will presumably be following yet another bandwagon, which means that they’ll become more Eurosceptic, too. This surely means that there has to be some party for those of us who still think that co-operation in Europe, open borders and a strengthening of economic, but also cultural connections is a good thing.
The question is why pro-Eurpeans in the UK have allowed the mostly Euro-hostile press to define what ‘pro-European’ means. Increasingly, the term means something along the lines of ‘uncritical, even in the face of unthinking bureaucracy, undemocratic decision making and fiscal irresponsibility’. Because, let’s be honest, the EU displays a good deal of all of those negative features, and more besides. We have to change that rhetoric and make it clear that being pro-European doesn’t mean being uncritical of Europe. So, if we believe most of the UK media, pro-Europeans roll over in the face of even the most counterproductive Euro-folly, while the heroic Eurosceptics Repatriate! Powers! How heroic that sounds – “… your mission, should you accept it, is to abseil into Brussels and…”. Why aren’t we more effective at countering this obviously false image? Euroscepticism condemns us to being the sulky kid in the corner who refuses to play ball.
I am all for the EU, but I want us to be fully involved in order to deal with some of its serious flaws and yes, with some of its irritating foibles too. The constant hostile rhetoric coming from Eurosceptics simply stops us from having the influence we need and deserve. Europe isn’t going away, even now, in the crisis – so when is the UK going to interact with it intelligently – and yes, opportunistically – exploiting the advantages Europe can bring to the full? The rhetoric about ‘repatriating powers’ is just so much hot air, and just keeps us from making the EU do its job better. I want us to be right at the centre of Europe, arguing our case, making it better and more responsive, but also making sure that Europe continues to hold its member states to crucial values, such as democracy, equal rights and civil liberties for all and of course free trade and the open borders necessary for that goal.
We have to communicate to people that being pro-European means being a critical friend and making the best of the many advantages Europe offers. And yes, I think the LibDems should continue to make that case.
Don’t apologise for kicking this debate off – the party desperately needs to develop its thinking on developments which are of huge significance to our economy and politics.
Some quick thoughts:
– We need to be robust on the need for resolution of the euro crisis. It is no good pretending that the eurozone has worked well, but it is now ‘too big to fail’ from a British economic perspective. I can understand why Germany wanted to see real commitment to economic reform and debt reduction from Italy and Greece, but we are now on the edge of the precipice and they need to get the cheque book out.
– We need a vision for Britain leading a successful non-eurozone EU. This should be a liberal Europe – pro consumer, competition and trade; promoting human rights and tackling international crime; working together to tackle climate change. But as a party that believes in decentralisation where possible we should not assume that every regulation that has come from Brussels needs to be made by Brussels – its the wrong policy and bad politics. And we should push for a democratic, accountable EU. How about requring the Commissioners to come from the European Parliament for example?
– We need to sharpen the divide between Cameron and his party. Watching the referendum debate the other week, it was obvious the Tory backbench is stuffed full of anti-EU obsessives (not Eurosceptics) who will never be satisfied until Britian leaves the EU. This is not the view of Cameron, Osborne or even Hague, and there is clear potential for a massive split within the Conservative party as events unfold. However, there is a danger they will be unified by painting us as blindly pro-European, if we don’t get the political dividing lines in the right place.
– We should recommit ourselves to an in/out referendum. A referendum now is ridiculous, because we don’t know what the eurozone will look like in a few months time, never mind the non-eurozone EU. So we wouldn’t know what we are voting for or against. But it is clear that significant changes are on the way, and that should have the people’s consent. I think we can win an in/out ‘take it our leave it’ referendum if we play a leading and positive role in reshaping the non-eurozone EU.
“should Nick Clegg still be leading the charge against Tory Eurosceptics when the issue is so unpopular with voters? ”
I missed that. When did that happen? There’s been a perfect opportunity to stress what a great idea it would be to join Schengen, as the tories discovered how unworkable a policy of treating every bus load of primary school children that arrived at Dover as terrorists really was. Not a peep from the LibDems.
The LibDems should stop accepting the right wing press’s version of the world outside Britain. Why on earth are people writing things like “It is no good pretending that the eurozone has worked well”? They’ve consistently outgrown us for a decade. They’re still doing it. Our policy of devaluing at the first sign of trouble has failed again and again and again.
The most likely result of the debt crisis in some eurozone countries is going to be the end of London as a major financial centre. By playing no part, other than to snipe from the sidelines we will lose out massively as a nation.
We need a party that reminds us of the reality – that Britain’s only future is as a committed part of Europe. A closed country that is nothing but a Puerto Rican style US dependency – the dream of the Europhobes – would be a nightmare for Britain. The LibDems should start speaking up for the ideal of a united Europe without apologising for it.
It might help if our Euro MPs were not in so many cases the most fanatical of European federalists who seem to have no intention of putting the interests of the UK first.
A first weeks ago Fiona Hall was calling for the UK to lose our rebate ( no doubt we will be hearing a lot more of this from the Tories in the next Euro elections).
And in this weeks Lib Dem news Andrew Duff is explaining (yet again) why referendums are such a bad thing ( people tend to vote the wrong way basically). His article contains this extraordanary line :
“MEPs loyal to the European project” – I want our MEPs to be loyal to the UK and our Party not a supranational project which can only advance by ignoring the wishes of people in this country.
@Simon McGrath You don’t get the whole concept. Why ‘our’ rebate? Are they sending you cheques? I don’t want the proportion of the tax I pay that ends up at European level to be repatriated to the London government. They won’t use it well. They keep starting wars apart from anything else.
This isn’t about ‘the interests of the UK’ which can only mean the interests of the clique who run the UK. They aren’t ‘us’. This should be about our interests as Europeans. MEPs are there to represent their constituents, not follow the London line.
It’s the wrong question – asking if you can be too ‘pro-European’ implies that support for Europe is anti-British and therefore unpatriotic. Which it is not.
Britain fights for European freedom because we see that freedom is interconnected and that ours depends on theirs.
It is the same with economies. National economies are all interconnected and are therefore interdependent. And economic growth depends on developing the connections between nations.
LibDems can definitely be more worldy and urbane about Europe, but we can’t be pro-European enough.
What continent are we in anyway? Does anyone ask ‘is Zimbabwe too pro-African’ because it isn’t isolated enough? Does anyone ask ‘is Burma too pro-Asian’ because it isn’t isolated enough?
Simply asking the question stumbles into dangerous territory because isolation is the first step to a state attacking it’s own people. Just ask Milosevic, Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad & co where isolation leads.
The correct question is not whether LibDems are too ‘pro-European’, but how can we shift the debate on Europe so that decision-making within the continent is in the interests of the people across the continent, not the few technocrats who occupy ivory towers in Frankfurt, Brussels, Berlin, Strasbourg and Paris.
European freedom must mean more than France and Germany not going to war with each other.
If that means breaking up the Euro to create 4 or 5 geographic currency unions within the EU to stop us being sucked into the Merkel-Sarkozy right-wing marriage of doom, then excellent.
We should always be in favour of European and wider international cooperation.
We should be against the bloated, unaccountable and often corrupt bureaucracy of the EU, against its attempts to micromanage matters which ought to be delegated to the lowest level of Government possible.
We have to realise that there is a huge democratic deficit with the EU. And draw the appropriate conclusions.
Perhaps if pro-Europeans hadn’t isolated themselves by shouting words like “”Little Englander” and “xenophobe” at those critical of the EU they might now have an easier time. Frankly there seemed to be too few who were prepared to criticise Europe for fear of being seen to agree with the Daily Mail. The comments above are encouraging because they show that it is possible to be pro-European without swallowing the whole EU “project” hook, line and sinker.
Lib Dems need to totally change their stance on Europe. That doesn’t mean becoming rabid Euro-phobes, but it does mean becoming more openly critical of the EU and how it is run. I support EU membership and the need for the UK to play a strong role in Europe. But that can only mean being a friendly and critical voice. The EU is a shambles! It has failed over and over again on the debt crisis, it failed to properly enforce the growth and stability pact, getting us into this mess in the first place, it has failed on CAP reform, it has failed on Common Fisheries Policy Reform. It has a crippling democratic deficit that is driving greater and greater euroscepticism here at home and around Europe.
If the Lib Dems want to be pro-EU and represent British support for the EU then they need to be the STRONGEST critical voice. But from a point of reforming the EU from the inside so we can make it fulfill its great potential to improve life for ALL the people of Europe. Just staring into the sky and pretending that the EU as currently constituted and run is fine and dandy and all the people of Europe are happy little Europeans will fail when people can see the gaping chasms and holes before them.
Failing to criticise the failings of the EU (while supporting its principles and mission) only plays into the hands of the Euro-phobes. It pushes those who can see those failings but don’t really want to leave the EU into the hands of the Euro-phobes. Those pushing that approach ar e the useful idiots of Farage and his henchmen. Everyone can see the EU Emperor has no clothes. We need to get him dressed before he is thrown out entirely. That can only be done by pointing out his current nakedness.
The EU undoubtedly needs reform and leadership and it would be in the interests of the UK to influence this, unfortunately the Tory party, from top to bottom, are ideologically incapable of doing so thanks to their lack of intelligence on the matter. Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems should be ideally placed to influence where Cameron cannot and will not. To retreat from doing so would be an act of political cowardice.
If the Lib Dems lose their position on Europe then there is no dividing line between them and the centrist Cameron supporting parts of the Tory party, just degrees of difference. There is not enough space in the UK for two right wing parties at national level, it’s why UKIP don’t have any MPs.
That will be an (even bigger) electoral disaster for you come the next general election
Yes, we are too pro-European. We need to be far more critical of the EU as it stands as it is a disaster. We can be pro-European integration without accepting the appalling, undemocratic structures imposed largely by France in the 1950s. We can call for proper European democracy which complements the UK Parliament, proper scrutiny of Europe in the UK Parliament, a reversal of some powers such as over fisheries yet still remain committed 100% to co-operation between states to achieve a better future and possibly – but much further down the line – a united country which calls itself Europe.
We should be avowedly pro-European but we need to explain clearly and simply why this is. Nickers is the right man to do this with his experience of the EU.
As for UKIP taking over, not a chance. They are a ragbag of failed Tory politicians and ideologues with no core philosophy beyond a hatred of co-operation. Like the BNP, when they win seats they are quickly shown up as one-dimensional nothings. Nothing to worry about there.
I can’t believe how anti-Europe Britain has become in such a short time. As someone who spends plenty of time in Portugal I’m not sure what the problem is, and who has stirred up the anti-Europe stuff.
My educated neighbours in Portugal all think the solution to the European problems are greater integration, and the end of nationalism. They believe that the ‘rich and powerful’ of each government are scared of losing their dominance and so the best way of ridding Europe of corruption and dominance by an elite minority is for a large Federal state. I think the Greek people have a similar attitude. Everyone wants to get rid of the money men and remnants of the Knights Templar Crusaders.
“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” Sun Tzu
I some how feel that you are at the imperilled stage, the title (“Pro-European”) alone indicates that you do not understand your opponents (in the terms of this debate the phrase should be either pro-EU or Anti-EU). You’ve blamed others for being “anti” yet never seem have taken the time to understand why that is the case, nor have you ever really put forward a credible counter case for what would happen if the UK left the EU.
You are clearly in a dilemma on how to obtain credibility after years of being totally pro-EU/Euro. In some cases the support has been blind to the facts – especially true in the case of the Euro. When many of the more thoughtful (and intelligent) people in the Anti-Euro camp were voicing concerns about allowing some nations into the club you were calling them “idiots” (or other names, as pointed out by Richard).
I’m afraid it’s a little late for this debate, you should have been sorting it out a long time ago and the result now is out of your (and the UKs) hands. This is a crying shame, without such an ideological rush to an EU Socialist super state we may have had a far more favourable outcome for the EU and the countries who are about to suffer. Once the crisis is over though, we may see a more evolutionary approach to the EU (i.e. the “multi speed Europe” which was often scorned by the pro camp) that one day could lead to a European State.
How all off this will effect the LDP in the future is anybodies guess, Simon McGrath thinks you will hear a lot more of Fiona Hall from the Conservatives at the next EU election; I have a feeling that you’ll be hearing a lot more than that from the likes of UKIP.
It’s good to see folks commenting IN FAVOUR of the EU and Euro. However, I think we need to go futher – there are some good suggestions in the previous posts. But if Britain and the EU are not going to lose out, we need to start a comprehensive plan NOW to make it happen. We need to capture and implement good ideas.
For example, if an EU referendum comes up, we need to ensure we don’t get an AV referendum rerun. And we have to decide in advance what we will do to win such a referendum.
We need to bat back the negative comments in the press and elsewhere. I know our excellent MEP does a good job in batting back the barrage from Farrage, but we should ensure that the voters hear common sense from lots of sources regularly. And I am sure there are other actions that I haven’t thought of, but as I said, comprehensive planning needs to be kicked off NOW, at a senior level in the party.
@Maria “The Tories are becoming ever more fervently anti-European”
You LibDems are so locked in your hatred of Conservatives that you can’t even see what’s going on anymore.
This Conservative Government is the most pro-EU Tory party ever! If they don’t feign being Eurosceptic, they’d lose what voters they have left to UKIP! They lost mine and hundreds of others “Conservative” bloggers/commenters/twitterers when Cameron came to power and reneged on his “cast iron promise”… and then all the subsequent U-turns since then have only acknowledged what we all already knew. Cameron loves the EU and parading on the world stage.
If you doubt my words…. name one power that they have managed to have returned back to Britain!
You should be very careful that being too Eurofanatic doesn’t drive what membership you have left, you can ill afford it with UKIP at your heels! Your zeal for the EUSSR is obsessive, especially when it comes to Clegg and Duff!
What’s the matter with you all? Don’t you believe in democracy or are you too afraid to find out what people really want?
IMMIGRATION is the reason people are becoming Eurosceptic.
We aren’t too pro-europe by any means. Our problem is that we’re terrible at talking about it. We’re so scared of alienating the supposedly eurosceptic British public that not one of our leaders has had the guts to say “We believe in the EU and we believe it is the best option for Britain. But there is also a lot wrong with the EU and that is why the Liberal Democrat MEPs have spent years working to make it more democratic, more accountable to the public and to reform money wasting, ineffective elements of the EU – such as the CAP, fishing quotas, and the Commision bureacuracy.”
I am proud to be a federalist and a Liberal who wants to see an enlarged, reformed and inclusive European Union
Just keep riling the Tory EU – nutters. It drives Cameron into a corner where his only option is to stay close to the LibDems in government. If Cameron tries to rely on the Tory party as it is now constituted he will be destroyed.
I’m proud to be a sceptic and a Liberal who wants to see Britain open for business with the whole world, not shackled to a protectionist and increasingly prescriptive supra-statist entity that – although it undoubtedly means well – has proved itself incapable of meaningful reform over many years now. The CAP is the pinnacle of this folly, with VAT not far behind.
Diversity and competition are the dynamic drivers of social and economic progress. Sustainable best practice will out. The enemy of Liberalism is homogenous harmonisation and the protection of privilege at the expense of the poor, at home and abroad – everything that the EU, regrettably, has come to embody, promote and perpetuate.
Fortunately, there are other reasons for being a Liberal Democrat.
Liberal Democrats may be European reformers in our policy documents, but, in our soundbites to the media, we’re apologists for everything that goes wrong.
I think we should deliberately shift from describing ourselves as Pro-European to Pro-Reform.
The worst failure of the European project is its lack of accountability, and that’s not just in the UK. It’s often forgotten how nearly the French rejected the Maastricht treaty, and, since then, the EU has steadily lost democratic legitimacy across the continent. This is a very serious problem, and I see little sign that those closely involved in the EU realise how serious.
I remember a conversation with someone from the European Commission, where he assured me, don’t worry, democratic accountability will come. But that was 20 years ago, and most people have long since lost patience waiting.
There are a few small steps we could make in the UK. Changing from the dreadful closed list used in the EU elections in the UK. More scrutiny by the UK parliament. But the problem is continent-wide, and we should not underestimate the difficulty of tackling it.
Some argue that European integration should, and must, continue. In my opinion, this is folly, unless more is done to address the democratic deficit. Sadly, neither the euro-sceptics, nor many of the European elite, are keen on reform. The Eurosceptics fear increased European democracy will mean a dilution of the nation, and a strengthening of Europe. The elite fear change which will reduce their own freedom to act.
If we are to be effective in fighting for a better Europe, we need to be more assertive in challenging its failings, and to do so in the limited soundbites we get on television, not in obscure policy documents which no one reads.
As a strongly pro-Europe party we are in a good position to be listened to when we call for reforms. The EU seems to have forgotten ‘subsidiarity’, a good Liberal concept that all decisions should be taken by the most local competant tier of Government. Also I find it impossible to defend the fact that the annual EU accounts have not been approved by auditors for well over 10 years.
The ‘Europe’ debate is conducted almost entirely in generalities, not to mention superficialities: “we are being pushed around”; “there are too many directives”. I asked a Lib Dem AGM audience yesterday what directives they opposed. They couldn’t name one. I asked them which ones they welcomed. They couldn’t name one.
Most Directives appear logical and reasonable when explained; there are very few that don’t make sense, though there are some that shouldn’t have passed a subsidiarity test in my view. Most Lib Dem MEPs consistently voted against the Working Time Directive on subsidiarity grounds. The Zoo Directive (minimum standards) only got accepted after much debate on this score. The proposed Soil Directive (minimum standards to prevent erosion) has not been accepted because of subsidiarity grounds.
But you will never get to hear any of this in the UK media. There are more journalists in Brussels, it is said, than any city bar Washington but there is not one single journalist from The Sun, Express, Daily Mail or Mirror, and at best one from each of the ‘broadsheets’. Can anyone tell me when they last heard an MEP from a party other than UKIP or the Greens on Question Time or Any Questions? After a while even those of us who think we are not bad at self promotion stop bothering and just get on with the work, and after 12 years in Brussels I still have no doubt at all that every month I spend in the European Parliament is worth in terms of political achievement every one of the two years I spent in the House of Commons.
Please let no Lib Dem run away with the idea that we are not critical of the EU institutions. Many of us are very critical, just as we are of Westminster, but except when we may reveal something about misuse of expenses you won’t read a word of coverage. Mind you, when there are so many MEPs and others who spend their lives finding reasons to be critical there is a need for a few to put the case for balance.
Oh, and lest we stray down the line of demanding more ‘accountability’, let people explain how that will work. We have seen enough over the past few months to appreciate (note Obama’s frustration) just how sclerotic is the EU decision-making process. What about an elected European President? Just see how that idea goes down with the Prime Ministers of Europe whose role would immediately become subservient!
British politics needs an ideologically internationalist party and we should not show electoral cowardice by moderating that distinctive position.
That ideology and world view should lead us to be pro European in the broadest sense, just as here in Ceredigion, in confronting Plaid Cymru we are “pro Britain”. We should therefore be applying a rational non nationalistic test to the issues. Political power should be exercised at the lowest level compatible with effective action and democratic control.
So we should favour greater European integration and pooling of sovereignty in aspects of economic, foreign and global atmosphere issues. The lowest level compatible with effective action for Agricultural and landscape subsidy is NOT Europe the CAP should be abolished. The operation of a single market should not require the level of detailed regulations we have, or the obsessive complexity of the State Aids rules which prevent countries from subsidising certain activities.
So, pro radical reform, of Europe, (and radical reform of Britain).
But let’s continue to be the most Internationalist party, and thus, yes, if anything more articulately “pro European”.
Pro-European LibDems like Tim Farron, Graham Watson and Chris Huhne show it is perfectly possible to get elected when you talk and campaign positively on Europe. But when you are collectively scared of being tarred with the Euro brush — as I am sure is now happening with student targeting — the majority of associations will target their funds elsewhere.
@leekliberal – the accounts are not signed off mostly because the auditors are not allowed to see what national governments spend the money on. It would be incompetent of the auditors to do otherwise. The EU side of things gets a clean bill of health these days. The financial problems within the Commission documented by Marta Andreasen appear to have been dealt with, for now.
I think we should look at the alternatives to the EU first.
Surely at this time in the year we can’t dismiss peace in Europe lightly. Those of us who , even as young children remember WW II appreciate that it wasn’t a few coffins coming, home tragic though that is. Visit the Menin Gate for goodness sake and get a sense of propodrtion.
But the EU is surely even more than that. Peter Wilby puts it perfectly when he says,”When Tories say they are happy with a free trade area but not with a loss of sovereignty,what they really mean is that they prefer a capitalist’s paradise of zero government and zero regulation where countries compete by continually lowering taxes, eroding wages, increasing working hours, aboloshing safety regulations and reducingsafety regulations and consumer protection.”
It seems to me that Germany outperforms us in maufacturing. The quick City buck worked well until it imploded. It isnt working people who are the problem it is a long history of incompetent British management. Otherwise why would the japanese and even the German companies employ native Brits?
Sadly the buddies of the incompetents, the Tory press, have convinced a large secion of our people to become turkeys voting for Christmas.
Surely we know where we stand!
Andrew Duffield,
How I agree with you (except about VAT) when you write ” I’m proud to be a sceptic and a Liberal who wants to see Britain open for business with the whole world, not shackled to a protectionist and increasingly prescriptive supra-statist entity that – although it undoubtedly means well – has proved itself incapable of meaningful reform over many years now. The CAP is the pinnacle of this folly, with VAT not far behind.
Diversity and competition are the dynamic drivers of social and economic progress. Sustainable best practice will out. The enemy of Liberalism is homogenous harmonisation and the protection of privilege at the expense of the poor, at home and abroad – everything that the EU, regrettably, has come to embody, promote and perpetuate.”
I too am a Liberal but have been out of the Liberal Democrats since the early 1990’s because I decided after the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 that the European Union was the solution to the last lot of problems, not to the future, which is Britain in a Global World. I then discovered that the Liberal Party was opposed to our joining the Euro, which the Liberal Democrats foolishly and slavishly wanted to do, so I re-joined ththe Liberal Party.. It has adopted a “Reform or else we should leave” approach to the EU as a compromise between EU-sceptics and EU-withdrawalists like myself. I would like to rejoin the Liberal Democrats if and when they come to a similar position.
I am pro-European but against the UK belonging to the EU. I am Director of the Campaign for Universal Inheritance, calling for all UK-born UK citizens to receive a basic minimum inheritance at 25. This was adopted as party policy by the Liberal Party in 2005, but it is no use trying to sell it to the LibDems while they are still in their EU-fanatic mode, because the EU would count it as discrimination against non UK-born non UK citizens.
There should be many different progressive and cooperative nation states rather than one country called Europe. We should be free to rule ourselves and experiment with new policies, moving the UK away from dynastic capitalism to a liberal popular and democratic capitalism with inheritance for all in each new generation paid for by reform of Inheritance Tax. The average wealth of every adult and child in the UK is about £100,000, according to the Office for National Statistics, so a £10,000 UK Universal Inheritance would be realistic and thoroughly liberal. But not while we are in an ever closer European Union.
The LIberal Democrats cannot be too pro-European, but they are way too pro EU for their own good and for the good of our country. The sooner we leave the EU, the CAP and the CFP the better!
Q: Are Lib Dems too pro-European?
A: Depends on whether you see the Lib-Dems as a protest group seeking to influence a consensual political system, or a politcal party jostling for power in an adversarial political system.
There is, after all, a reason why UKIP has climbed up to 7% whilst the Lib-Dem’s have sunk to 8%, will we still be asking that same question in six months time when those figures are reversed with UKIP on eight and the Lib-Dems on seven?
Of course we should be more pro-active and publicity-seeking about the reforms needed within the EU. For example why do we keel over when we get a refusal to abolish the ludicrous monthly transfer of the entire European parliament beween Brussells and Strasbourg and back again? Could all those MEPS who abhor this nonsense not simply refuse to participate in it?
However that is not the same as growing cold on the basic raisons d’etre of the EU concept. Oranjepan – some way back in this thread- says ” European freedom must mean more than France and Germany not going to war with each other”. Yeah right but why be so dismissive about that crucial underpinning to the project. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that there has been no war between any of the Western European countries since 1945 – perhaps a record period without such a war in modern history.
This weekend Catherine Bearder MEP said –
“There are many critics of the European political system and we have seen a lot of anti-European rhetoric in the UK parliament and media recently.
“But we need to remember the strongest argument for European cooperation and the most important success of that cooperation is the 65 years of peace that have existed between a group of countries that have spent centuries at near-constant war.
“Democracies that work together and come to rely on each other to trade with are far less likely to go war. Winston Churchill knew this when, speaking in the aftermath of war he said that “if Europe were…united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which it’s three or four hundred million people would enjoy.”
“Well, it’s now five hundred million and that original argument still remains the strongest one for the existence of a strong union of countries in Europe. We owe it to those that we remember today.”
Good stuff Catherine. Let me just finish by saying that the day we Liberal Democrats start kow-towing to the UKIP and its ilk will be the day I look for the exit door from a party for which I have been an activist for 50 years.
“Does anyone think it is a coincidence that there has been no war between any of the Western European countries since 1945 – perhaps a record period without such a war in modern history.”
Indeed not! Peace in western europe since 1945 is no coincidence at all and it is mainly the result of a combination of:
1. The age of nuclear weapons
2. The Cold War
3. NATO
The idea that we would all go back to butchering each other if the creed of ever-deeper-union is abandoned is a nonsense.
That the European Coal and Steel Community was a chiefly a product of fear against exactly this sort of recurrence does not mean that its ideological grandchild (the EU) can be said to be responsible for peace in western europe.
That people believe this to be true in pushing ever-deeper-union as an antidote to the ‘evils’ of nationalism is the leading cause for the rise in disharmony in EUrope today as people recognise and reject the disconnect between them and their governance.
Talk about unintended consequences!
If the purpose of the European project was to create a happier Europe, more at ease with its neighbours and less prone to industrial warfare, at what point did the means become confused with the ends?
That is to say, to the point where ever-deeper-union is deemed to be a good thing regardless of the fact that it is now leading to a less happy Europe, because the model of governance is perceived to be unrepresentative and unaccountable!
The EEC/EC/EU have done many fine things, but the insatiable need to do more threatens to unravel all of that good.
If Jedibeeftrix thinks wars or avoidance of wars are based entirely on military issues and are unconnected with economic and political issues, he knows little of history.
Also why does he assume that anyone defending the EU is in favour of an “ever-deeper union” by which is usually meant a process ending up with a “United States of Europe”. I for one am much more in favour of a widening union. Indeeed I regard the extent of this widening already – with more to come – as virtually ruling out this “country called Europe” straw man erected by europhobes (of which I am not accusing Jedibeeftrix of being by the way)
I doubt if any of the idealists who first launched what has now become the EU would have envisaged the vast spread of countries now within it – or would have thought such a conglomeration would or should become one country.
However the degree of political and economic co-operation is unprecedented, represents an enormous achievement and is quite capable of further improvement if all concerned were to get down to to that rather than constantly questioning its existence.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”.
I have been forced to conclude that had we been in a position to implement the party’s long-standing commitment to replacing the pound with the Euro then it would have been an unmitigated disaster for this country.
The facts here are simple enough : the Eurozone in its current form is an economic death sentence for its weaker members. The last two years have eloquently demonstrated that a common monetary policy that includes both strong and weak economies can only work if it is combined with a common fiscal policy – in other words, a transfer union.
In the absence of the ability to devalue their currencies, indebted countries like Greece and Italy have had no option but to embrace austerity which simply decreases GDP and therefore increases the cost of servicing their debt. A vicious circle of utter illogic.
The appalling vista of the democratic deficit that has opened up in Italy and Greece must give all democrats pause for thought. It is a damning indictment of the current state of the Eurozone that so many of our European colleagues are prepared to welcome the replacement of democratically elected governments by unelected “technocrats” – the exact set of bankers who got us into this mess in the first place.
I still believe that our future is in Europe and in the EU. But there can be no blind allegiance to the ideals of “ever closer union”. We must be muscular critics of what is being done in the Eurozone or we will be rightly held up to ridicule at the next election as the party that wanted to lead the UK to economic oblivion, or worse.
@ Denis – “I for one am much more in favour of a widening union. Indeed I regard the extent of this widening already – with more to come – as virtually ruling out this “country called Europe” straw man erected by europhobes”
Very much agreed on both points, at least insomuch as while i do see the dogma of ever-deeper-union as a real threat i also see widening the union as the best way of combating that threat. Spread the love, and spread it thin.
What absence of war?
Like poverty, it remains a primary UK / EU export surely?
A country called Europe is an Orwellian nightmare. There should be a place for progressive nation states outside bureaucratic undemocratic empires.
Why should we go on allowing the CAP to pay £500,000 each and every year to Prince Charles or £300,000 each and every year to the Duke of Westminster for the privilege of owning land they have inherited tax free?
It is time we got rid of our feudal hangover and ruled ourselves – sensibly and liberally – including inheritance of capital for all UK-born UK citizens at 25 – from Westminster.
Additionally the point we have to cover is that the only option for the Euro Group is to go for tighter fiscal and political union- the only circumstances in which the single currency can actually work. The UK will be excluded from this inner union because It is politically impossible for the UK to join the Euro in any foreseeable medium term future. The UK will therefore be excluded from the inner counsels of the EU which will be dominated by Germany and its glove puppet France. So as a party competing for power in the real world we have to start thinking about real practical alternatives.
@Chris Davies MEP
“Oh, and lest we stray down the line of demanding more ‘accountability’, let people explain how that will work.”
This is a very good question, and I know it’s easy for people like me, with limited knowledge of the EU to make suggestions, but I’ll make a couple anyway 😉
(1) There should be an open list version of PR, where voters don’t just vote for party, but also for candidate.
At present, the way to remain an MEP is to promote yourself within your own party (so you remain top of the list), and then promote the party to the electorate. This means an MEP can be quite relaxed about the fact that very few of their electorate know who they are.
If the voters could choose between different candidates, then name recognition would become vital, and all MEPs would have to promote the work they do in parliament, otherwise the electorate might choose someone else of the same party.
And when prominent MEPs lost their seats to others within their party, this would give the electorate more reason to think that their votes mattered.
(2) The Commission should be a cabinet selected by a coalition formed in the European Parliament.
At present, after a European election, if we follow the news closely, we might get a vague sense that there has been a shift to the Socialists, or to the Christian Democrats. But nothing seems to change. The leading figures in Europe remain the same, and the European parliament, though I don’t doubt it does good work, remains largely anonymous, and appears not to change.
Giving the European parliament the power to select the Commission would suddenly make the European elections more newsworthy and interesting. We could see the leadership of Europe ousted and replaced. This, surely, is an essential ingredient for democracy. For the electorate to be able to kick out one lot, and substitute it for another.
In a very indirect way, you could argue that this already happens. If leftwing parties win elections in the national parliaments of the constituent countries, they will eventually influence who ends up in the Commisssion. But, if the electorate have such an influence over the membership of the Commission, it is so indirect that even I, a political obsessive, don’t really notice it.
Is this politically achievable? Probably not. The Eurosceptics would be appalled at the risk of the European Parliament obtaining some democratic legitimacy. But just because making this change is a campaign that might take 20 years to achieve is not a reason not to propose it.
Would it work with the way Europe is currently governed? Probably not. It would certainly open up a can of worms if certain countries ended up without one of their nationality on the Commission. But some radical change like this is essential if the EU is to have the democratic legitimacy to take on new powers.
Are there a million problems that would have to be ironed out with such a proposal. Indeed. Not least the question of whether UK MEPs should have a vote for a Commission deciding policies which only affect the Eurozone.
But the alternative, of doing nothing, seems to me to be even more problematic.
It deeply worries me that, even if the current crisis is resolved with much deeper integration in the Eurozone, the democratic deficit will not be resolved. And there will be ever-greater resentment among people in the Eurozone at the undermining of their democratic rights.
@ Moggy – “The UK will be excluded from this inner union because It is politically impossible for the UK to join the Euro in any foreseeable medium term future. The UK will therefore be excluded from the inner counsels of the EU which will be dominated by Germany and its glove puppet France. So as a party competing for power in the real world we have to start thinking about real practical alternatives.”
You just ‘get’ it, even if many others seem to struggle with reality. If I could upvote this comment I would.
@ George – “The Eurosceptics would be appalled at the risk of the European Parliament obtaining some democratic legitimacy.”
You however only ‘get’ half the argument of the euroskeptics. It is all very well to create mechanisms of accountability, but what is the point if their decisions are not representative of what you/Britain wants?
A nation-state is effectively a collective agreement that a people are a family, who have sufficient trust in each other to accept indirect governance from representatives of the prevailing will of a majority, it is also a collective agreement to work together for the benefit of the whole rather than the individual. In short it is a marriage which results in a transfer union.
Inevitably there will be richer and poorer parts of the nation-states economy, and if that economy is not to tear itself apart from the strife resulting from a polarising divergence in wealth then there must be a compact agreed by the people that national taxation will be redistributed in a manner the assists less advantaged areas. In short the rich pay for the poor.
This compact is seen in every developed country, by way of social benefits applied equally throughout the territory, by way of regional development funds to promote wealth creation in poor performing areas, and by concentrating public sector activity in areas of reduced economic potential. It is fundamental to the cohesion and harmony of the society.
The crucial feature of indirect democracy is the perception of representation, the collective trust in shared aims and expectations that allows the people to put their destiny in the hands of another, safe in the knowledge that even if ‘their’ man doesn’t get the job then the other guy will still be looking after their best interests.
The manner in which this trust is built is the knowledge that you and ‘he’ have a history of cooperation, and that your respective families likewise have a shared social and cultural history of cooperation, all of which allows you to trust that when adversity strikes ‘he’ will act in a predictable and acceptable way.
I don’t share that sense of familial sentiment, because i don’t recognise a shared cultural and social history, so I am not willing to consent to be governed by another who will claim to be acting in my name, and while you may I sincerely doubt there is even a useful minority in this country who would support your position. Even the Guardian can’t produce a poll:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/24/eu-referendum-poll-uk-withdrawal
I am not following your reasoning, Jedibeeftrix. Previously you have agreed with me that the EU must not try to be a “country” but have recognised great benefit in its co-operative achievements. Now you are rather grandiloquently setting out that only those features which make up the essence of a nation state are of any value – or is this what you are saying?
I do have a sense of familial sentiment with fellow Europeans but not to the same degree that I feel within UK. Indeed it appears that the Scots keep their deepest familial layer for their fellow Caledonians before they even get to the UK level. The fact that it is unlikely many of us will ever achieve the nirvana of feeling our first and greatest loyalty to Europe is no argument at all against the degree of European sharing that the EU represents.
@Jedibeeftrix
Thanks for your comment. Although I’m clearly a lot less Eurosceptic than you, I’m not sure we’re necessarily disagreeing as much as you imply.
My suggestions for improving the EU’s democratic legitimacy are not a ploy to allow the EU to rule over the UK without our consent. Quite the opposite.
Under my suggestions, the councill of ministers would still remain, and so would our national veto, unless the situation arose where the UK electorate could countenance a closer union.
What I’m arging with Chris Davies over is that to go for a closer union without first getting much better democratic legitmacy would be folly. The EU has a serious legitmacy problem, not just in the UK, but elsewhere in Europe. Not tackling this issue is going to cause much more serious problems down the line.
And for the Liberal Democrats to assertively advocate democratic reform would also be more coherent a political position.
But then, as I say in my remarks to Chris Davies, I’m not particularly knowledgable about the EU, and perhaps I’m being politically naive. So I’d welcome arguments as to why my proposals would be undesirable.
@ Denis – “The fact that it is unlikely many of us will ever achieve the nirvana of feeling our first and greatest loyalty to Europe is no argument at all against the degree of European sharing that the EU represents.”
Agreed in principle, but the “degree of European sharing that the EU represents” today is not the problem so much as the degree of European sharing that the EU wants for tomorrow. In short; ever-deeper-union.
@ George – “The EU has a serious legitmacy problem, not just in the UK, but elsewhere in Europe. Not tackling this issue is going to cause much more serious problems down the line.”
Agreed again, but the legitimacy deficit is the result of two failures, which both need addressing:
1. Accountability
2. Representation
I don’t believe the second is ‘fixable’, so fixing the first is mere tinkering around what should remain no more than a loose association of sovereign nation-states that choose to cooperate and collaborate where appropriate.
The words of Clegg today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/8890843/Nick-Clegg-warns-European-in-fighting-will-play-into-hands-of-chauvinists.html
Mr Clegg said there was a middle ground between greater integration, favoured by France and Germany, and total withdrawal from Europe, favoured by dozens of backbench Conservative MPs:
“What we want is a European Union which is exclusively oriented towards growth prosperity and jobs,”
jeedibeeftrix:
How do you define what “Britain” wants? The interests of nations (read: national governments) are represented in the EU by the European Council. But that is not the purpose of the European Parliament, where members sit, and mostly vote, according to party groups (ALDE, EPP, ECR etc) determined (usually) by the national party to which they belong. If MEPs voted en bloc by nationality, then there would be little point in voting in European parliamentary elections, because whomsoever you voted for, they would vote the same way (for the “British” position). In other worse, it would just duplicate, not scrutinize, the Council, and its members would have absolutely no accountability.
You could just as well argue that the UK Parliament’s decisions are not representative of what Cornwall wants, since there are only 6 MPs representing Cornwall.
@ Alex – “How do you define what “Britain” wants? You could just as well argue that the UK Parliament’s decisions are not representative of what Cornwall wants, since there are only 6 MPs representing Cornwall.”
You can’t ever define with absolute accuracy the wants of a group, but at every stage there is an effective compromise being a big enough group to create a position carries some useful weight and yet small enough that the position can claim a ‘home’ among its constituents.
For a whole variety of reasons the nation-state, not least for the shared social and cultural history of its people, has proven to be a very effective compromise. Now, this is not to say that there are no tensions within a nation-state, Cornwall being a very good example, nor too is it to say that all nation-states have an equal claim to validity.
The sad fact is that centuries of warfare have left much or europe a patchwork of nations overlapping with states, with groups of people who do not necessarily share a social or cultural history with their neighbours, who may not in fact even share a language. Thus is the fascination with proportional-ism on the continent so evident, and thus, equally, the distrust of of nationalism.
But this is not a problem of similar severity in Britain, and you may note the consequent disinterest in proportional-ism and relative acceptance of a national identity.
Bearing in mind that I refer primarily to Britain; I have yet to have demonstrated any cogent argument in favour of an EU that is more than a loose association of sovereign nation-states, or at least that Britain is no more integrated than that into a more federated edifice.
Sniping from the sidelines is all we are able to do and crucially always have been able to do – because of the intrenched views of our own mandarins and politicians that every ounce of crap-legislation emanating from the Brussels Bunch must be adhered to by the letter. We have been the only country to react in this way to punitive and crass declarations from this bunch of twits – scared of our own shadow or too bone-idle to resist, when it came to standing up for our interests and common sense. Now, the situation we all are in becomes clearer – why it has taken so long is beyond me as ordinary folk have been railing for ever against the rediculous bureaucracy that EU-politics has spawned. Not too many people that I know are anit-Europe per-se. Most people I know are anti EU and simply because the clowns involved, led by Barosso the chief clown of clowns, have, missing the real opportunity that a united European trading front could have, encouraged things to move towards the federalistation of Europe – but not in a savvy, constructional or clever way. By instating the Euro prematurely, probably the easiest of steps within a federalist programme, they hoped that the rest would simply fall into place and follow – as usual, being politicians, they made the usual political assumption that by stating and wishing for something it would happen. Just like that. Wrong! Planning, Analysis, Thought , Strategy and Hard Work were, as always in trying to achieve something of worth, necessary but lacking. As it is now. Peeing against the wind is at best what they are doing. Our own politicians of whatever ilk should admit to seeing the writing on the wall – if they genuinely can’t see it they should consider becoming consultants!
To continue saying and believeing things like “Within Europe not ruled by Europe” is naive, when for Europe read “EU”. It will be many years before our voice within the EU means much, if it ever does or has. Our voice within Europe, however, has a much better chance if we play our cards right. Options are there and this is well past the ideal time for exploring them and showing that we do, after all, have a bit of backbone left in us. Come on! All you politicians – time to get real!
There is no liberal or democratic reason for the UK to have to be a member of the EU in order to cooperate in all sorts of ways with European as well as with other countries globally.
Very much agreed Dane.
Dane & Jedi,
would you also advocate withdrawl from the Council of Europe?
no, as an intergovernmental organisation it is fine.
where i have a problem with the ECHR and its court is the combination of activist judges who push judgements beyond the bounds intended, and british courts that accept that breach in jurisdiction (the latter being on its way to getting fixed).
likewise with the EU, i have no objection to a loose association of nation-states that principally cooperate and collaborate in creating and maintaining a common market. \However, if we move to a eurozone fiscal union that becomes a defacto federalised core and runs roughshod over the common market interests of the extra-euro partners via caucus voting then we have reached the limits of the noble goal of steering europe away from a statist and protectionist path and might as well seek efta membership.
the benefits would not be worth the price.
I’ve criticised the party’s past public stance on Europe, but I am pleased with Nick Clegg’s recent statement given with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Exactly the right message. I was impressed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/8890843/Nick-Clegg-warns-European-in-fighting-will-play-into-hands-of-chauvinists.html
jedi,
I think you’ve misunderstood the role of the Council.
CoE and EU are designed to work in combination, so it is self-defeating to support one without supporting the other or withdraw from either to concentrate on the other.
Additionally, as you say “the benefits would not be worth the price [of integration]” it is necessary for you to provide some figures to back up that assertion – what would be the benefits and what would be the price?
“CoE and EU are designed to work in combination, so it is self-defeating to support one without supporting the other or withdraw from either to concentrate on the other.”
That assertion has yet to be demonstrated, there are after all many more EC members than EU members, are there not………..?
“Additionally, as you say “the benefits would not be worth the price [of integration]” it is necessary for you to provide some figures to back up that assertion ”
Easy:
Benefit = Common market built around free-market principles vs the more statist/interventionist instincts of France et-al
Price = A Fiscal union among the Eurozone members leading to causus voting that freezes out non-euro members
For decades we have fought to reform the EU in our image (successfully in many areas), whilst still preserving Britain as a sovereign nation-state (schengen, euro, etc = success), but the eurozone crisis may have brought an end to this balancing act, so the question [may] now be between:
1. joining the party
2. joining EFTA
Lol, you really don’t understand that the Lib-Dem’s are a political party seeking a mandate from the people via electoral success, rather than a advocacy group applying pressure to a political system, and were the party to continue in this direction of pointless technocratic arguments that ignore the big political questions of who “you” consent to be governed by then it is sunk!
jedi,
no figures? go figure!
But thanks in the meantime for clarifying that for you and the anti-european brigade the issue isn’t about facts or ensuring the future is better, rather for you its about nothing more than self-congratulation.
I’ve asked you repeatedly in this and other threads to offer any substantial reasons for your preferred policy choice, and you have not provided one solitary reason that stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever. You admit you don’t understand the Byzantine and under-reported processes of Europe, so I’d struggle to see how you hope to make any valid criticisms anyway.
Sadly it is clear there are parties actively cultivating your sort of underinformed and misinformed view, and you are representative of the willing audience. Your failure is evidence of how Europe is failing – and this is cause for serious concern.
Perhaps I could encourage you to ask some questions instead of rehashing blithe statements and breastbeating.
I’ll take this as a starter for ten: “the big political questions of who “you” consent to be governed by”
The liberal view rejects the premise of this question: ‘I’ govern myself, just as one consents to be represented at the various levels of democratic organisation in order that agreement can be reached on the behalf of the whole.
The process of democratic government depends upon individuals pursuing their ability to make, argue and listen to representations.
Unless you exercise your right to ask questions or provide convincing facts of an alternate view then your consent is presumed. Nobody in democratic society is governed ‘by’ anyone else, rather we consent to abide by agreements we have a stake in creating through our opportunity to participate in the process.
In return I’ll ask, who governs you?
“Orangepan”
You say to “Jedi” : ” I get the feeling certain sections of society require the facts of life to be spelt out for them, since reading is apparently beyond you”
Why is it that EU-fanatics are so often so insufferably condescending? – a bit like priests from pulpits.
Perhaps they know, underneath, that it is just a question of faith, which may be misplaced. Certainly that has proved to be so in the case of pushing monetary before political union, of which they were so much in favour.
Thank you, Gordon Brown, for keeping us out of the Euro, in spite of all those insufferably condescending arguments for going in!
Oranjepan
Posted 18th November 2011 at 2:26 pm
“Perhaps I could encourage you to ask some questions instead of rehashing blithe statements and breastbeating.”
I Know that statement wasn’t directed at me, but what the heck. I fail to understand some of the statements that you have made about the Council of Europe.
““CoE and EU are designed to work in combination, so it is self-defeating to support one without supporting the other or withdraw from either to concentrate on the other.”
This isn’t entirely accurate – they are seperate bodies. There are 20 non-EU members of the CoE, some may wish to join the EU at some stage but it is unlikely that others will (although anything is possible). In fact, if you read the CoE Treaty Office web page it does quite clearly state that treaties are “open to accession by non-member States, even non-European States”.
I could understand if you had said you couldn’t support the EU without supporting the CoE, after all the EU has tied itself to it and you can’t be in the EU without being covered by it. So the question is, why would you think it pointless to support the CoE if you don’t also support the EU?