The Eurosceptic case for voting ‘Remain’.
I came of political age as the ERM debacle and Maastricht ratification process corroded the Tory party. Saving the pound against its “inevitable” inclusion in the Euro project made me a Eurosceptic. The Queen on the money, the ability of the state to finance itself *is* sovereignty, and the ability to generate our own finance has been the United Kingdom’s saviour in three world wars, and it would be a profound piece of treason to give up a world reserve currency.
Next to currency, any other pooling of sovereignty is trivial and easily unwound. NATO which extends from the Arctic to Asia Minor, the area to which the UK MUST respond to any attack is arguably a far greater pooling of sovereignty than what remains of the EU. I will NEVER accept the United Kingdom adopting the Euro and I’d take to the rooftops if necessary to prevent it. I am deeply hostile to the idea of ever closer union, and any conversation with one enthusiastic about a federal Europe often has me reaching for a cudgel. I am a Eurosceptic.
Too many people like me, blooded in politics in those bitter divisive battles which pitched Tory business-toadying against Tory patriotism in a civil war whose skirmishes continue to this day, want to restart the war. For many, trust in the EU forever lost, they have spent 20 years believing every anti-EU pitch from the UK press (however untrue), and simply not considering any benefits of being in the club, hiding in an intellectual jungle pretending like Hiroo Onoda that the war wasn’t over. So satisfying, so heady was the victory over the Euro, they now yearn to defeat the EU itself, and so they have worked themselves into a hysteria where the EU is a silent enemy poisoning everything.
All this willful cognitive bias by the ‘leave’ camp means going into their campaign that they have so long demanded, with some truly dreadful arguments, based on exaggerations, lies and wishful thinking. You can almost hear in their words a background by Elgar, the sound of a merlin engine, the image of a lone Tommy in battledress standing on the white cliffs of dover, fist raised to Europe as the Supermarine Spitfire roars overhead he yells “Very Well, ALONE!”
Interesting piece. Could you clarify some things about sovereignty?
"The Queen on the money, the ability of the state to finance itself *is* sovereignty"
In what way is this sovereignty? My understanding of sovereignty is it is about governance. Legal tender laws seem to be only one aspect.
"Next to currency, any other pooling of sovereignty is trivial and easily unwound".
How is this 'pooling of sovereignty' easily unwound? Is 'pooled sovereignty' a euphemism for dependent and non-sovereign?
"NATO… is arguably a far greater pooling of sovereignty….".
How is NATO a pooling of sovereignty? My understanding is that a treaty with obligations is not the same as governance.
"But they make all our laws" I hear you say!"
This is fundamental to sovereignty, who governs. How is the UK a sovereign nation if another body can make laws directly affecting how it is governed? Doesn't this situation put the UK on a par with a local council making bye-laws? As more nations join the EU, does 'pooled sovereignty' dilute self government?
"Really,So what? who cares where the law comes from?"
Aside from governance there is also an issue here of accountability. How is the EU directly democratically accountable to the UK polity?
Although 'sovereignty' has been described as 'arcane', 'esoteric' or of no interest would you agree that it forms the foundation of an nation state?
All power is limited – the charter of fundamental rights, constitutions and so forth. Even the fact that other nations might take umbridge at your actions. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so not the best person to ask for a definition of sovereignty.
The UK's relationship with the EU involves handing some areas of law particularly some trade and taxation, to the EU for the functioning of the single market. But the UK parliament could, if necessary withdraw by repealing the single European act. Parliament remains sovereign. In or out, much of what comes from Brussels would be incorporated into UK law anyway.
Some are angry that 'foreigners' have a say in how the UK is governed and would rather nothing came from the EU or anything else. I'm not sure, given that the EU is basically a club of liberal democracies, how different the laws would be. Yes. The EU has taken control of some law. But I don't think this fundamentally affects sovereignty because it could in extremis, and with little disruption beyond any crisis which would precipitate such a move, to simply withdraw.
The British constitution can be tweeted: The Crown in parliament is sovereign, no parliament may bind its successors. Nothing changes that.
Jackart,
Have you been reading my brain? Excellent argument. I agree 100%.
Jackart,
Thanks for the reply, very helpful. I am unsure that it can be considered a club as such.
"The UK's relationship with the EU involves handing some areas of law particularly some trade and taxation"
The EU seems to be acquiring competencies in all areas. For example, one of its aims used to be harmonization of trade regulations, it seems from 2016, it has now extending this idea to legal systems.
From EU Justice and Fundamental Rights:
"One of our main goals is therefore to build bridges between the different national legal systems across the EU. A borderless and seamless European justice area will ensure that citizens can rely on a set of rights all across the continent."
Since our legal system is different to the continental legal system, this is quite an undertaking. Since there are already basic rights across the EU, I am unsure what this is all about and its implications.
I have no problem agreeing standards with other nations, my concern is governance and accountability.
Next week: Jeremy Corbyn on the Capitalist case for voting Communist.
I'm a Eurosceptic, not a Europhobe. I simply cannot see to what problem 'leave the EU' is a solution. Can you tell me, Simon Jester? Fees? In EEA we'd still pay. Immigration? A plurality of immigrants come from india, a majority from the subcontinent. How would that change, & why? Law? Pah! Nothing would change, as all that EU law comes from world bodies anyway. Sovereignty? We can repeal the Single European Act at will, should we need to, and walk away. Why risk all the potential disaster to no obvious gain.
Jeez.. The Heathite wing of the Tory part is alive and well I see.
You're still a cunt.
To what problem is "leave" a solution, apart from a childish desire to poke Johnny foreigner in the eye?
I can't agree with all of this although there are some excellent and very valid points. But . . . nobody wants to go back to 1956 and to suggest anyone does is somewhat far-fetched. However, the UK was an amazingly vibrant place in the 60s and early 70s before we joined the gang. Hugely prosperous, innovative, envied by many other countries and the place to be with considerable trade all around the world and not tied to the Continent by anything much apart from the ferry service. We did very well indeed without the EU then. We had to give up a lot of trade with our friends in NZ and Aus at the behest of the Common Market – and if you don't recall that well I do as I was old enough to know what was going on.
You don't care about immigration. Well a lot of people do. That is evident in the latest rounds of talks is it not? Why would David Cameron be negotiating to try and reduce the money spent on immigrants if it didn't matter to a lot of people in the UK? I spent this morning at work chatting to a Cypriot who used to work for the EU. She told me quite categorically that the view was to shove as many immigrants on a train to the UK as possible "because they are too spineless to refuse them and send them back". Her words and not mine. Now that other countries in the EU are having to deal with mass immigration they are getting very twitchy indeed as their native population doesn't like it overmuch, either. Hence the closure of borders and the slow dissolution of the Schengen agreement.
Moving on to the Law. Our parliamentary independence has been over-ridden by Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, which states that in effect all European law must be considered to be a valid and binding source of UK law. Where European law exists on a particular subject (at least if set out in the Treaties or in Regulations), it can override any "inconsistent" UK law – including Acts of Parliament. In this way the concept of parliamentary sovereignty is meaningless. So we can't really differ from anything the EU wants in its laws. Personally I don't like being told what to do by a bunch of unaccountable unelected people. At least with a Parliamentary system such as we had we could do something about the little tykes called MPs every few years. Not much we can do about the likes of Juncker with his openly stated love of closed door deals and his attitude to democratic principles. His view of the French vote on a European issue was that he would press ahead regardless of the outcome. A true democrat!
Oh – and there are so many other things. The near bankruptcy of how many countries? The reneged promises to the Turkish Cypriots over the lifting of embargoes should they vote for the Annan plan – still embargoed, of course! Maybe Greece needed some tough input, but who let them in and who let them fall into such a state by lobbing yet more money into their pockets and then asking everyone to cough up to bail them out when it fell apart? Poor and dependent satellites? Just look at Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland – all of them going through the mill. All in the main was due to the pegging of the Euro to whose currency and to whose advantage? As for closer integration – under whose control I wonder? Though one might take the view that yet again we should be in there to ensure that one particular country doesn't dominate.
I don't like Boris, I don't like IDS, in fact I don't like most of them so I am going to have to decide who I like the most of two sides I dislike. I don't think the EU is much to rave about, I do think that there is a load of self interested bullshit being talked by both sides and by so called "experts". To quote Fagin in "Oliver" – I think I'll have to think it out again.
I’m almost on the same page as you on this. The British encouraged the EU to make the world a much better place through expansion to the East. The EU Commission sometimes makes a stand against vested interests that could ignore a national government that will be here today and gone tomorrow. And we were all made stronger by having young people with energy and talent coming to the UK to peruse their futures.
Against that however are the walking nightmares of the Common Agricultural Policy acting as a tax on the poor, and excluding the potential of farmers in the developing world. The Common Fisheries Policy with its wholesale destruction of European fishing Stocks. And the erratic madness of the European Arrest Warrant.
There’s a big loss of sovereignty too, but frankly how big a loss is that? What percentage of voters actually have any effect on deciding the course of elections (safe seats etc), and do those voters have any better of an idea how to run a successful country?
You could easily argue the toss.
Personally I would vote to leave. What would reverse my decision would be if we could sign trade deals with external countries if we wished, rather being forced into a collecting trade deal with protectionist countries that have no interest in trading concessions.
That is rather a narrow requirement, but as I say it’s a pretty close thing.
The EU has clearly been a net force for good, but I don’t feel beholden to the status quo. Is it so terrible to demand improvements and reform? What impetus is there for reform if we’re all locked in a deathgrip within the current 20th Century formation?
All institutions are resistant to change, and this one much more than most. I don’t feel bad about giving it a kick up the arse as it fails to adapt to a new globalized century.
It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d
most certainly donate to this fantasatic blog! I gess for noow i’ll settle for book-marking and adding
your RSS feed too my Google account. I look forward to fresh updates and will talk
about this site with my Facebook group. Chat soon!
Good information. Lucky me I discovered your blog by accident (stumbleupon).
I’ve saved as a favorite for later!
I don’t know whether it’s just me or if perhaps everyone else experiencing problems with your site.
It looks like some of the text within your posts are running off the screen. Can somebody else please provide feedback and let me
know if this is happening to them as well?
This could be a problem with my internet browser because I’ve had
this happen previously. Cheers
Superb, what a weblog it is! This web site presents valuable facts to us,
keep it up.
It’s enormous that you are getting ideas from this article as well as from
our discussion made here.
Great post. I will Ьe experiencing sߋme of theѕе iissues ɑs
weⅼl..
May I just say what a comfort to find somebody who actually
knows what they’re talking about on the internet.
You certainly realize how to bring an issue to light and make it
important. More and more people really need to read this and understand this side of your story.
It’s surprising you’re not more popular because you surely possess the gift.
Please update to appreciate your chat expertise.