EU politics: repent at leisure
Monday 21 January 2013
 Eurozone reform, he says, means the single market has to be restructured. It should include all EU and European Economic Area states, such as Norway and Iceland. Turkey, too, should be offered full membership. Then, Owen tells us, the key is to stop the single market requiring free movement of labour for all member states. Free movement requires a country to reach levels of economic success and prosperity that make it far more likely their citizens will be content to remain within their own boundaries, he says. In the next few months a prudent European commission would extend the Romanian restriction on free movement from 2014 to 2018. And then, for his next trick, Owen tells us that a restructured Single Market would need to adjust the voting formula for QMV, although he would allow a single European negotiator in world trade to remain. This is very helpful to our cause, as it suggests that the opposition is singularly ill-informed. Apart from anything else, the changes suggested by Owen are of such an magnitude that the EU parliament would most certainly demand a treaty convention, as is its right under the Lisbon Treaty amendments. That, as we know, is already on the cards, flagged up by Barroso. But it would also require a delay until after the euro elections, so the original timetable has to stand, putting Cameron's referendum at 2017-18. If the prime minister is determined to pursue the renegotiation route, the referendum simply cannot be earlier than that. What worries Owen is that, over the five years of a long campaign, "the eurozone could falter, UK inward investment fall, jobs disappear and economic growth weaken still further". The sooner there is eurozone reform, matched by a restructuring of the single market, the better, he says. However, a greater – if unspoken – reason for concern at the delay might be that the great scare stories that are being put about will not come to pass. And, as with the scares over the UK's refusal to join the euro, when the sky doesn't fall in, sentiment against the scaremongers will harden. This is just as well, for we are seeing a drop in the polls in the support for leaving the EU. YouGovsays 34 percent want to leave the EU, against 40 percent who want to stay in. July 2012 had 48 percent wanting to pull out and 31 percent wanting to stay in, so in the space of just over six months, we have seen significant reversal in sentiment. At the same time, support for UKIP has fallen away, dropping to seven percent, the lowest recorded by YouGov in several months. Support for UKIP at the euros has also dropped back to 12 percent, putting the party in fourth place after the Lib-Dems on 13 percent, the Conservatives in second place on 30 percent, and Labour with 38 percent. Not too much can be made of these UKIP figures, especially if one believes that recent high scores have been over-cooked. The current levels probably come closer to the real level of support, and even then they may still be exaggerated. Reflecting on the referendum poll, those who only a few months ago were pushing for an immediate poll might well reflect that, had they been given their wish, we would have lost. It is going to take a considerable period to build a solid foundation of support. If Mr Cameron was a gambling man, when he gives his speech this week (if he does), he might change tack completely and offer a snap in-out referendum. He could well win it, leaving UKIP stranded for the time being. That would also make Lord Owen a very happy bunny, but I suspect it would not solve anything over the longer term. The underlying unhappiness would remain and only increase over time. Thus, the longer Mr Cameron leaves the referendum, to a point, the better it will be for us. Never was it more true that, if you act in haste, you repent at leisure. But I bet that none of those who did want a referendum "yesterday" are even close to repenting. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 21/01/2013 |
EU politics: in for the long-haul
Sunday 20 January 2013
 The biggest joke of the day though comes from Conservative MP Tracey Crouch, who says: "People need clarity about what it is that the government is saying because there are so many mixed messages", then adding: "One of the advantages of having a referendum is that we can have an informed debate on our future relationship". The joke is that the last thing we are going to see is an "informed debate", as this piece (headline above) illustrates. With the assistance of the legacy media – which will side with those who want to stay in the European Union – we will see torrents of such corporate propaganda, with agenda-seekers allowed free rein to peddle their wares. "The UK not only has to be part of Europe. It has to be a fundamentally active part of Europe," says Ian Robertson, global head of sales at BMW and a member of the board of the German company. "To think about the UK being outside of Europe doesn't make sense". This is not, as Kipling might have said, "fair dealing", as there is no possible justification for a claim that leaving the EU could possibly harm the economic interests of this corporate giants. If anything, for a purely nationalistic point of view, we would be far better off outside the EU and within the EFTA/EEA, re-engaging in discussions at global level. There will be plenty of other players in this game, but the one thing they will all have in common is a determination to avoid an informed debate. Mr Cameron and the part of the Party that remains under his control will be seeking to sell his "vision" of the new deal. Others will be seeking to gain what advantage they can, and none will have either the capacity or intent to tell the truth. To an extent, that is understandable. The truth is a moveable feast, the reality complex, difficult to understand, full of nuances and completely devoid of black and white. Modern, soundbite discourse does not lend itself to the exploration of complex issues, and the entertainment industry (aka media) has no feel for the subject. Another certainty is that the independent players will be ruthlessly excluded. The last thing the establishment wants is well-researched, accurate material raining on its parade, so that will be ignored. However, with five years to go before a referendum, if at all, it can't be said often enough that the long campaign has its own peculiarities. The short-lived FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) tactics of the europhiles will soon run out of steam, and one can tolerate only so many self-interested corporates before tedium sets in. In the longer term, we will see the renegotiation meme lose its attraction, as it drains away into the sands of reality. Mr Cameron will do his best to convince people that the renegotiation is real, but even his powers of persuasion will founder on the indifference of the "colleagues". That, above all, gives us hope. If the next referendum is to be a re-run of 1975, with a five year lead-in, we have the benefit of experience and have developed a few tricks, while the opposition seems to have learned nothing. So far, they are playing the same predictable games as last time. When it becomes obvious that Mr Cameron's renegotiation has failed, and he has nothing realistic on offer, it will be relatively easy to convince a cynical population that membership of the EU is going nowhere. As long as there is an "out" option and we have five long years to prepare, we should be confident of a victory. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 20/01/2013 |
Posts
