Open Europe shows its true colours Monday 11 June 2012  Here at EU Ref, we do occasionally take a little bit of flak for urging caution about others who parade under the label "eurosceptic" – so it is a pleasant change to get an e-mail this morning telling us we are right about one of our targets: Open Europe. We have long argued that this organisation, which claims eurosceptic credentials, is a front organisation with little to chose between it and the overtly europhile organisations such as Business for New Europe. And now it has come out, demonstrating clearly that it is a thoroughly europhile organisation. The event concerned is a report, which was lovingly publicised yesterday by The Observer, arguing that Britain should stay in the EU. Under the false flag of a "eurosceptic think tank", authors Stephen Booth and Christopher Howarth offer a limited and utterly dishonest argument against a British exit from the European Union, based on the premises that it would pose "unpredictable political and economic risks". The pair go on to argue that from "purely a trade perspective", Britain should remain in the EU, then asserting that, "there is a value to the UK's ability to influence not simply the terms of trade but also EU foreign policy and enlargement". To achieve their end, Booth and Howarth argue against the "Norwegian" option or EEA membership. They agree that this would free the UK from the CAP, EU fishing rules, EU-wide regional policy, and reduce its budget contribution, but this is not for them. To counter these very obvious attractions, they say, "while guaranteeing access to the Single Market in services and goods, outside the customs union, access for goods would be subject to complex rules of origin ". Then, putting the boot in, they declare: " Britain would still be subject to EU regulations on employment and financial services but with no formal ability to shape them". This, of course, completely ignores the diqule and the role of the multitude of international organisations and conventions to which we subscribe, which have a vital and continuing function in framing Single Market standards. To assert that, outside the EU, we would have "no formal ability" to shape laws and standards promulgated by the EU is simply one of those europhile myths which amounts to a naked and wicked lie. In fact, where now the EU negotiates for us on the basis of a "common position", as it does in the WTO, outside the EU but in the EEA, our voice would be restored and we would revert to a powerful, independent player. The timing of Open Europe's outing is interesting, especially as it is matched by europlastic (and now openly europhile) MP George Eustice, who now asserts that "Britain can do better than leave the EU. We can change it". Once again, we get the deadly mantra that, "Britain would do better to drive reform from within than leave and risk losing all the benefits". At least now the enemy has come out into the open, shedding any pretence. There can be no doubt now that we are dealing here with europhiles, even if it takes the media some time to get used to the idea (if ever). The fact that Open Europe has been a false flag operation for so long, though, warns us to take nothing at face value. Those who present themselves as eurosceptics are not necessarily so, and even those who appear to support the eurosceptic agenda may have other motives. Sadly, the contents do not always match the label on the tin. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 11/06/2012 |
One of those moments Monday 11 June 2012  The man (I have no idea who he was – not the one pictured) was talking about the Spanish "bailout" which, as Raedwald observes, is already unravelling. He's right about the cash hoarding – that is where the death spiral ends. As to the question, why can't the politicians get ahead, the answer is partly here - but the full answer is that they are in the "bubble". What might be obvious to him (and us) isn't to them. Given different filters, conditioning and perception, they will react differently to the same information. We have said many times though that the difficulty is that the politicians are seeking political advantage from an economic problem. And here, Wolfgang Münchau in his piece yesterday says a seasoned EU observer told him this week that whereas until recently financial markets knew nothing about EU politics, they now know too much. I'm not sure Münchau is right there. If they did, we wouldn't have our television pundit reacting the way he did. These pundits still don't grasp that the crisis has a political purpose – to facilitate European political integration. The "colleagues" are thus playing a completely different game, and are prepared to put the entire global economy at risk to achieve their aims. Now that they feel they are very close to attaining them, they are not going to give up now – not when they are ahead of their own particular curve, in their own particular game. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 11/06/2012 |
Referendum: an "overwhelming majority" in favour Monday 11 June 2012  The Times peeps from behind its paywall this morning to tell us that an "overwhelming majority" of British people favour a referendum on "Europe". This is according to a Populus poll commissioned by the paper, which finds that 80 percent of respondents now want a say, and 50 percent believe that there should be an immediate vote on Britain's "relationship" with the EU. A third think that there should be a referendum "in the next few years". Only 18 percent think a referendum is unnecessary. Thus, a population which – we have been consistently told – is not interested in "Europe" now has eighty percent demanding a referendum on the issue. This might suggest that the EU is of slightly more concern than some would have it – although it might also indicate that public opinion can be manipulated. Conscious though that the referendum can be the tool of the demagogue and is itself capable of infinite manipulation, one has to ask about what, precisely, the people want to vote. Is this a demand for a straight "in/out" referendum, or are we looking at another of these "renegotiation" fudges? Reviewing the options, as I did yesterday, a declaration of intent to withdraw is the only mechanism available within the treaties, by which a "relationship" with the EU can be forged. In any event, we have to be out of it to have a relationship with it. An unfocused demand for a referendum, therefore, is not necessarily a good thing. We have been there before, with the plebicite misused to settle party differences rather than the question at large. And a commitment to "renegotiate" without first giving notice to quit is not a feasible option. The upside of this is that, if the "colleagues" are determined to go ahead with their fiscal and political union, the status quo works for us rather than against us in any referendum. Furthermore, there are circumstances evolving where we could benefit from the "affirmative" bias, where people tend to prefer a "yes" answer if it is on offer. Possible questions for a future referendum are: 1) "do you wish to proceed to full political integration in the European Union (which includes joining the euro); or 2) do you wish the government to negotiate a new relationship with the EU? As long as it is made clear that, in order to negotiate, we must first give notice to quit – but we than have two years to come to an amicable and realistic settlement – we are in with a chance. If this "game" is played badly, though, we could end up worse off than we are at the moment. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 11/06/2012 |
Posts
