EU referendum: environmental FUD
Wednesday 15 May 2013
 This is just a taste of then things to come, should a real referendum campaign get underway. What we are being told is that the environmental consequences of Britain leaving the EU would be "huge". Membership of the European Union has been a boon to the UK's wildlife and habitats, and human health is better as a result - we are told. Thus, according to the less than impartial analysis for Friends of the Earth, published today by the EU policy expert Dr Charlotte Burns from the University of York, a go-it-alone Britain would be far from green and pleasant. The UK really was once the dirty man of Europe and only the EU has saved us from a polluted fate worse than, er … a polluted fate. Now, there is no way we're going to be able to mix it with the Greens on their turf, and hope to win. Never get into a fight with a chimney sweep. The trick thus is not to accept the argument on their terms. We have to change the terms the debate. Here, we already have input for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson. A "pragmatic" eurosceptic, he agues that we could not possibly abolish all EU law on leaving the European Union. We cannot have a situation where vital issues, such as environmental control, become totally unregulated. Even EU law, pro temp is better than no law. On that basis, when we leave the EU, we take with us the whole acquis - the whole rag-bag of EU law. We repatriate it, and take it onto our statute book as our own. Actually, much of it already is our own. EU law has already been integrated into the British statute book, by Acts of Parliament and through Statutory Instruments approved by Parliament. These do not disappear just because we repeal the European Communities Act. They stay in force until they are specifically repealed. It is only EU Regulations that fall when we walk away from the EU, and it there that we have to legislate to repatriate the law. We bring it home, so that it becomes ours, to be implemented without a break. On this basis, the Friends of the Earth is wrong. There would be no environmental consequences from Britain leaving the EU. The day after we leave the EU will be exactly the same as the day before we leave. Some have interpreted this, in almost a malicious sense, as the UK remaining locked into the EU. But these people are not thinking straight, if at all. Almost all current environmental law is of EU origin. Thus, the prohibition, say, on dumping toxic waste in a school playground is, ostensibly, a breach of EU law. This we do not want to remove. Looking at this in the round, not all EU law is bad law. Some, in fact, was originally sponsored by the UK. Some we would have implemented whether or not we were in the EU. But some is bad law, and we need to be rid of it. So, what we do is appoint a Royal Commission and/or a review committee to look through the entire raft of legislation. After due consideration and much public debate, we keep what is good. We get rid of the unnecessary onerous and the bad. And we fill any gaps, and improve on what we've got – but we take our time, working carefully and deliberately. Even then, we will not be on our own. Some is Single Market legislation and, if we remain in the EEA, we keep it anyway. We remain members of UNEP, of UNECE and of a myriad of lesser-known environmental organisations. So we stay fully engaged with the international community. And we honour international commitments. That is how we deal with the FUD. That is how we must deal with FUD if we are to win a referendum. We change the terms of the debate. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 15/05/2013 |
EU referendum: "splitters!"
Tuesday 14 May 2013
Peter McKay in the Daily Mail today suggests that eurosceptics would not be demanding a referendum if they thought they'd lose it. They would, he writes, be playing a longer game, softening up public opinion by publicising the iniquities of the EU.
The mistake that McKay makes, though, is in assuming that "eurosceptics" are a homogenous group with a common aim, rather than a rag-tag bundle of groupescules, with more discord than the People's Front of Judea. On the matter of a referendum, there is not even any agreement as to the nature of any referendum that should be held, or when it should be held, and there most certainly is no consensus on whether we could win a straight "in-out" referendum. This blog is very far from alone in asserting that we could win and, therefore, we are indeed playing the longer game. Those who have watched the clip from Monty Python (above), will note with delight the parody of small group politics, with John Cleese (of the People's Front of Judea) declaring that, "The only people we hate more than the Romans is the f*****g Judean People's Front". The cry of "splitters" thus resonates throughout the land, as each groupescule declares itself the custodian of the one true faith, condemning the heretics and dissenter, seeking to condemn them to outer darkness. Far from fostering a debate, the intolerance of many of these groups is such that they assert that dissenting voices should not be heard. No more so is this heard than from the tiny claque which holds itself to be the guardians of the flame of freedom, they who assert that the only way to regain our "sovereignty" is to repeal the European Communities Act. It is this tiny band of malcontents that holds that Article 50 is a "trap", or even worse. The trouble is that, if we assume that the first step towards withdrawal from the EU is winning an "in-out" referendum, without which there is nothing, then it seems to make sense that the entire weight of the eurosceptic "movement" should be devoted to winning the referendum. Necessarily, this means crafting a message which will appeal to the largest possible constituency, including the vast majority of the electorate who do not read the newspapers, do not engage in political discourse and who, increasingly, do not even vote. Here, the vast sum of experience of fighting referendums suggest that the dominant driver will be thestatus quo effect, with people tending to shy away from uncertainty. And, with that in mind, we have already experienced a taste of the europhile campaign, with the emphasis on "FUD" (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt), as a means of convincing people that they should stay within the warm embrace of "Mother Europe". Remarkably, though, there is a voluble faction within the eurosceptic community which also seems to want to rely on FUD, and in particular, maximising the uncertainty attendant on our leaving the EU. This is the faction which would eschew Article 50 and have us repealing the European Communities Act, on the back of a declaration that we have unilaterally abrogated the treaties. Assuming then that the EU would not take any "retaliatory" action against us on the matter of trade, it seems that the newly sovereign UK would then embark on a series of negotiations with the EU, to determine the nature of its ongoing relationship. Bizarrely, anyone who does not agree that unilateral and immediate withdrawal is the winning strategy, is branded as a "europhile", a tool of the establishment, or even worse. However, at the risk of being called that ultimate of epithets, a "splitter", we have to say that the crucial element of any winning campaign is to offer a "soft landing". People are far more inclined to risk "letting go of nurse" if they are reassured that the unknowns have been addressed, and their effects contained. What we would prefer individually, then, is of less relevance. While the prospect of immediate withdrawal, and rolling out the coils of barbed wire in the cliffs of Dover, might have its attractions, the key to the adoption of any strategy must be the assessment of how it will play with what Spinelli called the "swamp" – the uncommitted middle ground. These are the people that matter, and the evidence indicates that they will look first and foremost for reassurance that short-term interests will not be adversely affected by withdrawal. If we cannot give the necessary reassurances, or there are too many uncertainties, the voters "hold onto nurse". We lose. And there, we can do without the "splitters". As far as is possible, we need to be able to present a common front. The opposition will seek to project the most extreme "eurosceptic" stance as representing the whole – something the BBC is very good at. The uncertainties of an immediate withdrawal are a gift to the opposition, and we cannot afford to give them the game. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/05/2013 |
EU referendum: not very much further forward
Tuesday 14 May 2013
 So says one of the businesses owned by the Telegraph Media Group Ltd, which also tells us that the Conservatives will take the highly unusual step of publishing "draft legislation". This will illustrate the law that the Tories would like approved. The development emerged in Washington last night after Barack Obama effectively backed Mr Cameron's attempts to renegotiate Britain' s relationship with the EU before ordering a referendum. The president called for Mr Cameron to be given time to "fix" the EU, asserting that, "you probably want to see if you can fix what's broken in a very important relationship before you break it off". He then warned that Britain would lose influence if it ever left the single market. Comments like this are politically illiterate, but are typical of American politicians and many US commentators, who understand the nuances of UK politics about as well as we tend to understand the nuances of theirs. Our problem with the EU, for instance, isn't specifically that anything is broken. It is that the EU is a putative United States of Europe - and we want no part of it. However, we need have few fears about an Obama endorsement. American presidents interfering in British politics do not go down well, so his intervention is not likely to help Mr Cameron. And nor is this "draft legislation" any big deal. A government Bill is not going to follow, so the best the Conservatives can hope for is a private member's Bill. This has only a limited chance of becoming law, and then only if supported by the Lib-Dems. As it stands, that support is unlikely, so we are being treated to gesture politics. There is also the question of timing. If Mr Cameron is set on the renegotiation path, he must have some certainty that he will be able to conduct and conclude negotiations with the "colleagues" in good time for a referendum campaign to be conducted. That, effectively, means doing a deal by the end of 2016, or very early in 2017, only 18 months or so after the general election. Assuming Mr Cameron does get re-elected, this is a very small window for renegotiations – or would be if there was any intention of them seeking serious concessions. And it depends entirely on the good will of the "colleagues", who could refuse to deal – as is widely expected. All-in-all, therefore, we are not very much further forward. There is still no certainty of a referendum and it is in any case dependent on the successful conclusion of negotiations, over which Mr Cameron has no control. Putting all this together, these recent events don't do so very much to enhance Mr Cameron's credibility either. On top of the imponderables, the anti-politics vote keeps soaring, making his re-election ever more unlikely. One of these days, the man will realise that the only way off the hook he has impaled himself is Article 50 – but it is going to be a while yet before he gets to grips with the inevitable. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/05/2013 |
EU referendum: the genie is out of the bottle
Monday 13 May 2013
 Even more bizarre is the practice of his employer taking his column, for which it has paid the man, and then treating it as news as a statement from "the London Mayor" (illustrated above). This is wrong. He was writing in his capacity as an employee of a business called the Telegraph Media Group Ltd. It also says very little for the news values of this business that it chooses to headline the claim by its employee that "this country's workers are plagued by 'sloth' and under-perform compared with their foreign rivals" – something which is dead easy to write when you are getting £250,000 a year for writing a crappy column for the Telegraph Media Group Ltd, on top of your Mayor's salary of £143,911 plus expenses (£11,445.93 last year). However, far more interesting – insofar as anything Johnson says is interesting – is the bit tucked in at the end of the news piece where we learn that The Great Man thinks that the EU will only take us seriously on renegotiation, "if they think we will invoke Article 50, and pull out, if we fail to get what we want". Never mind that this dismal creature cannot actually think straight. If he was not too grand to read the Booker column, he could have learned that the only way to get what we want is to invoke Article 50. Like Samuel Johnson, who observed of a woman preaching that it was like a dog walking on his hind legs. "It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all". So it is with Boris and Article 50. However, it is hugely entertaining to find that the groupescules are squeaking with rage at my references to Article 50, and have been particularly active this weekend in condemnation of Booker and myself, as well as polluting the Booker comments. However, they are too late. The genie is out of the bottle, and we even have the loss-makingGuardian picking up the overpaid Boris and his reference to Article 50, while even John Redwood has discovered it and Farage has joined in the fun in the Daily Star. Farage is accusing Mr Cameron of trying to obscure the truth of what would be involved if Britain was to leave the EU. He says that, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, a country wishing to withdraw had to action Article 50 of the treaty, which then provided for a two-year "period of grace" while negotiations took place. "He isn't haggling, he is wriggling," Farage says. "The Prime Minister is obscuring the truth. One can only imagine it is to fool his own backbenchers because it doesn't fool our friends on the Continent". This has even made ITV News, which has former Conservative Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth adding to Cameron's disquiet, by saying that the prime minister is "wrong" to think he can renegotiate Britain's EU membership. "David Cameron is thinking he can persuade the golf club to play tennis, and his negotiating position is impossible because he is saying, 'If I don't succeed, I will continue to play golf'", Forsyth says. With the agencies also picking up the Farage quote, Article 50 is now spreading far and wide, even to be found in the Ellesmere Port Pioneer and (here's real fame for you), the Solihull News. Despite all this, Mr Cameron, embarking on a three-day trip to the US, is complaining about people discussing a "hypothetical" referendum. There isn't going to be one tomorrow, he says, so, "What matters is making sure that we do everything we can to reform the EU, make it more flexible, more open, more competitive". The poor man also wants to "improve Britain's relations with the EU, change those relations so that when we have the referendum before the end of 2017 we give the British public a real choice, a proper choice". But the real choice, the proper choice, is Article 50, and it isn't going to go away. Much as the groupescules hate it, it is now part of the political discourse. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/05/2013 |
EU politics: one treaty to cover them all
Monday 13 May 2013
 Another complicating factor is the general election in September, so everything has to be seen through the filter of domestic politics – further complicated by the emergence of the AFD. This time, though, it's our old friend, Wolfgang Schäuble and he isn't even talking to his home audience. Rather, he is in the Financial Times, perhaps speaking to a British audience, but perhaps not. Schäuble, we are told, is warning that a single EU bailout agency and rescue fund for ailing banks is legally untenable until a new treaty is on the block. The timing is interesting as we are just weeks away from a European Commission plan for a single bank resolution agency and rescue fund. This will be the second pillar in the eurozone's much-vaunted "banking union", but there is now some confusion about whether it can go ahead on schedule. Nevertheless, Schäuble is making his pitch, complaining – if that is the right word – that, "The EU does not have coercive means to enforce decisions", sinister words for someone close to the centre of German power. "Its historical roots are young", says Schäuble, then admitting, "Its democratic legitimacy could be improved upon". In a more elliptical reference to the status of the EU, the German finance minister then adds, "What it has are responsibilities and powers defined by its treaties. To take them lightly, as is sometimes suggested, is to tamper with the rule of law". What this suggests is that the limit if "treaty stretch" has been reached, and Schäuble is getting nervous about faking it. It may also be something to do with rumblings from the Bundesbank, and the continued unease at Draghi and his ECB stirring the euro pot, with his possible purchase of corporate loans, in breach of state funding rules. What usually happens next is that Merkel steps in and tells her finance minister to cool it – although the rebuke is rarely public, or direct. And then we enter another round of blowing hot and cold. Meanwhile, the signal will not have escaped Mr Cameron – or those of his advisors who can count to eleven without taking their socks off. They are looking for signs of an early treaty to hijack, and this could be the answer to a Conservative's prayer. At least the water should be nicely muddied as Mr Cameron grabs this lifeline to divert attention from his own growing disarray. However, Cameron should not get too excited. Schäuble is still talking of a banking union of sorts that can be had without revising the treaties, including a single supervisor; harmonised rules on capital requirements, resolution and deposit guarantees, and other trimmings. Using nice homely analogies, Schäuble calls this "a timber-framed, not a steel-framed, banking union". Ominously, he says this would serve its purpose and "buy time" for the creation of a legal base for "our long-term goal: a truly European and supranational banking union, with strong, central authorities". Even more ominously, perhaps explaining why he is talking to a British audience, he says this "legal base", aka treaty, could "potentially cover the entire single market". If that is the case, the British "referendum lock" kicks in. Be it Cameron or Miliband in a couple of year's time, we could still be having a referendum, this one on a new treaty. Let no one say that EU politics is ever boring. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/05/2013 |
Posts
