By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: December 27th, 2010 People understand that the alternative to the EU is intergovernmental co-operation The Fabian Society has commissioned a survey of British attitudes to the EU. On his blog, the amiable Sunder Katwala summarises the findings as follows: “The British public are sceptical of the EU as an idea, yet rather in favour of having more of it in practice”. What? According to the survey, 45 per cent of us say EU membership has been bad for Britain, as against 22 per cent who say it has been good – a finding in line with recent polls. In what sense, then, do we want “more of it in practice”? Sunder infers his optimistic interpretation from replies suggesting that most of us want European states to collaborate with each other on climate change, fighting terrorism, stimulating economic growth and so on. But here’s the thing, Sunder, old chum: no one is arguing against international co-operation. The alternative to Brussels supranationalism is not autarky, but intergovernmentalism. Take, for instance, the issue of crime and terrorism. “Crime doesn’t recognise national borders,” say Eurocrats sententiously, as though delivering themselves of an original insight. Indeed it doesn’t, which is why independent states have created a series of international judicial mechanisms: extradition treaties, the mutual recognition of court judgments, the Hague Convention, acknowledgment of time spent in another country’s prison as part of a sentence, collaboration among intelligence agencies, Interpol and so on. Such mechanisms have two advantages over the EU’s common judicial space. First, they are global, linking hundreds of police and judicial systems rather than just 27. Second, they have been evolved bottom-up, in response to identified need, rather than being imposed top-down in pursuit of political integration. If you think the European Arrest Warrant is superior to the traditional extradition process, take five minutes to look at this appalling case. What goes for criminal justice goes across the board. Fish don’t acknowledge territorial limits. So which is better: multi-lateral agreements to preserve stocks, or the ecological calamity of the CFP? Financial services are a global industry. So do we pursue international agreements, such as Basel III, or do we subject our banks to the heavy-fisted control of Brussels regulators? In more than twenty years of arguing about the EU, I have come across this fallacy over and over again. “You Eurosceptics think we can survive alone in the world, we have to work with our neighbours blah blah”. There is something almost heroic about the persistence with which Europhiles inveigh against a position which no one is taking. As the Fabian poll shows, the country as a whole knows it. People, as I never tire of pointing out, are wiser than their leaders.Daniel Hannan
Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist, and has been Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999. He speaks French and Spanish and loves Europe, but believes that the European Union is making its constituent nations poorer, less democratic and less free.
We oppose the EU by more than two-to-one;
Europhiles claim we favour it 'in practice'
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
We oppose the EU by more than two-to-one;
Europhiles claim we favour it 'in practice'
December 27th, 2010 11:53496 CommentsDecember 26th, 2010 13:50December 25th, 2010 11:11December 24th, 2010 14:49
Posts
