Prev story: Tony Blair: unwitting libertarian champion, or psychopath?

Is there a point at which Liberal Democrats should want to leave the European Union?

28
01
08

Is there a point at which Liberal Democrats should want to leave the European Union?

tagged with:

I used to take it more or less as an article of faith that the EU is good for us. Somehow. And that the Liberal Democrat position of being avowedly critical of some of the ways it operates was a good one - we were the first, I believe, in calling for CAP reform way back just after we joined, for example.

Like so many lofty political projects it has or perhaps could have beneficial aims. I was even rather enthusiastic about the idea of a "United States of Europe", if only it could be constructed as a genuinely liberal federation in which sovereignty rests as much as possible with the individual. I'd even like to have seen it replacing national governments, mainly because I can't think of anything that national governments are good for in a world where the individual is sovereign that would not be better done perhaps with a "light touch" overarching supra-national body.

The current line indeed is that there are some things we just can't handle on our own - issues that naturally do not respect national borders - pollution, global warming, terrorism. Some, I noted during the campaign for the European parliamentary candidates, take a more controversial line (for me at least) that the "fight" against "excesses" by transnational corporations can only be handled at a supranational level. And that the EU is such a model supranational body capable of meeting all these challenges.

All the time of course there have been nay-sayers - on the left by people who see it as a free market capitalist conspiracy (actually I think they mean protectionist but I don't think they understand that any longer on the left) and on the right that it is meddlesome, protectionist (and they mean it correctly) and no longer, if it ever was, centered on freeing trade to make individuals better off. And there is evidence that both have a point - in fact the same point - especially about protectionism.

But for me the reason I'd quite like it to slow down is that we have lost control of our own, national politics - even without Europe interfering, though it certainly helps when they claim things are out of their hands. And, despite the chimera of representation that is the European Parliament if we have no control over our national politicians we have no control over what they do in our name in the other courts of the European project.

So, can anyone sell the whole idea to me again; explain to me how we can possibly make it work for the sovereign individual if we have a great barrier at our national government level not interested in that sovereign individual even in their own countries? It probably goes without saying, as I've done so before, but all the brilliant arguments in the world will do nothing for me if Blair ends up as president. I have not left this sceptered isle now for nearly twenty years, and even then it was just to go to the emerald one, but I will seriously have to consider emigrating to Norway if that happens.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://jockcoats.me/trackback/801

Comments

Submitted by wit and wisdom (not verified) on January 28, 2008 - 15:30.

There are countless very good reasons for staying in the EU. It is the most successful international organisation ever and it has secured peace in Europe for decades, not to mention democracy in a number of former dictator ships, including Spain, Greece and Portugal. If that peace is to be maintained we need to be united and strong together. Putting aside all the high falutin' talk, the EU is also of great benefit to our country, accounting for over 60% of our trade, securing the rights of workers which British governments would never have dreamt of doing, providing a counterweight to the generally well-meaning but often seriously misguided USA, I could go on... The key reason we must stay in the EU is that, having missed the golden opportunity to shape how it developed in the 1950s, when Britain's stock was at an all-time high among our neighbours, we left it to the French to introduced their arcane, secretive and just-this-side-of-corrupt model of government which is how it has remained. The Tories need to remember that this was their shame, as are most of the British mistakes on Europe since then. We need to fight tooth and nail to develop a democratic, accountable Europe which continues to deliver the huge benefits to all its citizens without allowing the dynastic political families of some of the other less well developed European democracies to take it over. Then we need to export this model to other parts of the world to allow them to share in equivalent benefits (North African Union, anyone?). The European model is one of consensus and co-operation between partners, from mighty Germany to tiny Luxembourg. This compares rather well with the American model of take-it-or-leave-it democracy and free trade, which in the form they seek to impose, may not suit every culture. We are perhaps the most successful country in the world for exporting liberal political ideas and free-market values which underpin freedom and democracy in any system and we need to keep on pushing towards that goal in our own backyard first. The alternative is a Greater France, which I for one do not fancy... How's that for a polemic?!

Submitted by Jock on January 28, 2008 - 21:49.

As a polemic it's fine, but all the positives you have to offer point to it being a protectionist league.

Take trade - you say it accounts for 60% of our trade. Is that going to cease if we were not inside the union? If yes, it just proves it's protectionist. If no, why worry? If we were freer, in trade terms, they would only be impoverishing themselves by not trading with us.

Workers rights - workers rights would be better served by truly free trade raising the returns to labour and putting them in a sustainable position not to accept exploitation. Anti-exploitation measures enforced by law are just protectionist. (I have to declare an interest here but these "workers rights" threaten my job and my home - if I have to accept I cannot do more than 48 hours a week I'll lose my warden's job and with it the roof over my head....some "rights" that!).

As to the idea of a "Greater France" - France is the most protectionist of the lot. If it were left up to them Europe would be a third world country compared with Freeport UK.

Peace, well I might grant you that, but no, it was not the EU that has kept the peace IMHO but NATO. And even then, peace within Europe itself only rather than keeping its member peaceful - the EU was utterly unable to prevent Bliar going to war when it suited him and his transatlantic buddies, and Spain and France very nearly fought a proxy war against us in the south Atlantic!

Ultimately it is governments that wage war, not people, in any case. In a free country of sovereign individuals we would neither be target nor aggressor. And America, since it got interested at all in the outside world during WWI, has never been "free trade". It has often been worse than France on the protectionist scale. And its sort of protectionism, centred around the military industrial complex, demands war to feed the beast. And all the economic bodies it created after Bretton Woods and continues to be the most influential in are protectionist at their heart.

Now, I do see a possible little glimmer of hope - that of the entry of the newer members who desperately want freedom, who know only too well the cost of the quasi socialist experiment that is the end of protectionism. If we were, as you say, to fight tooth and nail with and for them against the western behemoths it might be productive. But CAP reform was our cry in our 1979 manifesto, thirty years later and the CAP is still impoverishing European consumers and shutting out non-EU poor supplier countries. But I still say, that is so highly unlikely until and unless we have a proper liberal nation here at home. And achieving a liberal nation here at home is nigh on impossible while we are part of a protectionist league. Catch-22.

Submitted by wit and wisdom (not verified) on January 29, 2008 - 14:20.

This could run and run but to be brief: I'm all for freedom for workers but the 19th century demonstrated quite clearly that you can't just allow the market to help workers, particularly those on low incomes. There has to be some government intervention to ensure that those least able to help themselves, i.e. agricultural labourers living in draughty dormitories and Shelly washing hair in Abertillery for £3 an hour actually get a minimum salary. Yes, there should be a free market as far as possible but it can never be completely free. As to a greater France, if you re-read my post you will see that I completely and utterly abhor that prospect, which is why we must be involved in Europe. Finally (I could go on...) enlargement of the EU has ben the watchword of successive British governments for decades. This clearly and unequivocably demonstrates that our role in Europe is very positive for all its members. If it had been up to France, Italy and Holland all the easter bloc countries would probably still be queuing outside in the cold. So we should cheer for the inclusive, free trade Europe that we have - after all, we don't have to conduct 60% of our trade with Europe, we do because it is profitable to do so - and the powerful and very positive role Britain has therein. I feel I should break into song but will restrain myself.

Submitted by Jock on January 29, 2008 - 16:44.

..so I'll make no apology for responding again!

I don't believe the c19th proved anything about economic liberalism. The free trade doctrine was only really catching hold as the 1906 Liberal government took over and they bravely tried to implement key parts of it ("socialism is against capital, liberalism is against monopoly" said Churchill - who transferred to the Liberals because the Tories were continuing to plough a protectionist line and not a Free Trade one). They were thwarted first by the aristocracy and then blown off course by the war and the rise of socialism. Never has the truly liberal "Free Trade" doctrine been properly implemented. All on the "left" of UK politics pretty well agreed that it would be the best way to increase the returns to labour right up until MacDonald's government (Philip Snowden, MacDonald's chancellor, wrote that "protectionism was the mother and father of monpoly", and L-G is said to have left the national government because the Tories were promising a return to protectionist policy).

This is not legislation free as economic and fiscal policies go, it's certainly not "laissez-faire" as far as I'm concerned. But it does use market forces themselves to compensate for people being disadvantaged by monopoly and entrenched privilege. I do not see how such a policy could be carried out whilst we are a member of what is still a highly protectionist Europe. And it seems to get more protectionist not less. So to my mind it is heading in the wrong direction, for all our calls for reform.

I take it the song would be "Ode to Joy" rather than some Eurovision rubbish! There are some things that our closer fellowship with our neighbours does not benefit!

Submitted by wit and wisdom (not verified) on January 29, 2008 - 18:04.

The moment Europe 'cracked' was when our stupid, stupid Tory government decided to back out talks on the creation of the whole edifice based on a brilliant idea in the 1950s. From that moment on it became the inefficient, protectionist Hell which it surely is. The market should be as free as possible but it will always need a light touch regime to keep it on track occasionally. The 'invisible hand' was, is and ever shall be a myth, albeit a beguiling one. I remain an optimist for Europe. The 'idea' of Europe is still a good one - as is witnessed by the clamour of states seeking to get in. The promise of our membership remains that we can open up the markets therein even more, which our governments have been quite successful in doing. With the far more free-trade minded easterners on board the prospects are better than ever. Yes, we need to smash the CAP. Yes, we need to reform from top to bottom the badly failing bureaucracy at the heart of Europe. Europe needs a complete overhaul from Brussels to Talinn. However, we should not throw away the whole edifice just because it is currently not working as it should. And yes, Ode to Joy is a very inspiring anthem and one I cannot help humming quite a lot. I remain a Europhile and I would urge you to see the benefits of us having partners, not just the myriad problems in Europe.

Submitted by Jock on January 29, 2008 - 18:44.

...is also really a "misquote" to the extent that it is so very frequently used in ways that Smith himself was not discussing when he coined the phrase. And all you need to do to ensure the security of even the poorest and least able to compete is to ensure their equitable share of the wealth we all create and can easily be determined by "market forces" (eg land values, penalizing negative externalities and so on).

But that aside, my main concern is that the EU may now be holding us back from becoming the truly liberal nation we need to be in the 21st century. As you acknowledge, change has been slow, and whilst I can see that some of that lies at the feet of semi-detatched UK governments of the past, even with the new accession countries I worry that protectionism is so entrenched that it's going to be far more difficult to root out than we could on our own.

The corollary of course is that if the UK (though it rarely seems to have a mind to do so) plus the accession countries managed to persuade the behemoths of the benefits of a truly liberal, free trade federation, it could be huge. I just doubt our ability to do so in time.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on January 31, 2008 - 19:31.

securing the rights of workers which British governments would never have dreamt of doing Which is to say "imposing labour laws which British governments would never have dreamt of imposing". If those laws had much support in the British electorate you can be sure that many British governments would have done more than dreamt of imposing them. If they were popular, you would not have to thank the EU for imposing them. Implicitly, they were imposed against the will of the electorate. It is not an argument in favour of the EU to say that it overules democracy in the UK.