Category: Europe

Categories
Europe

Mini-rant about Gibraltar

Both sides are over-reacting massively here.
 
The Brexiteers are reacting to a (perhaps deliberate?) misunderstanding of the EU letter. It didn’t say that Spain would take over Gibraltar. It says that Spain will have a veto on any trade (or other EU-related) relationship between the EU and Gibraltar. That’s either a statement of fact – or a recognition that QMV won’t be used by other EU states to overrule Spain on Gibraltar-related issues (not sure which applies – possibly the latter, otherwise the letter wouldn’t have said what it did).
 
The idiotic Howard quote now means that Remainers are compounding the misdirection by implying that Howard is saying we’ll invade. Some other particularly idiotic Brexiteers have gone on to say this – but Howard didn’t. He just did some standard Brexit BS bluster about how ‘resolve’ can somehow make a Spanish veto go away… (it can’t).
 
All sides are missing the fundamental difference between the Falklands and Gibraltar. The Argentinians – as they discovered – didn’t have a veto. And while the Spanish can’t enforce a change in sovereignty, they do, and can block almost any other aspect of the relationship between Gibraltar and the EU. And despite what the Daily Telegraph says, we can’t use military force to overcome that.
 
Whether Spain want to use their veto or not is a different issue. They have a lot of voters who work in Gibraltar – and a whole bunch of other issues at stake in their relationship with Britain (and Gibraltar). The ‘punishment’ approach to Gibraltar didn’t work before – and there’s no reason why it should work now. Longer-term they have more to gain from a positive approach.
 
But if the UK Government and its proxies continue to behave as complete knobs – and pretend that they can unilaterally tell Spain what to do, it’s not impossible that Gibraltar will be caught in the resulting crossfire and suffer as a result. After all, Spain has voters and a sense of national dignity as well. We can’t barge around gratuitously pissing people off and expect there to be no come-back.
Categories
Europe

Unsurprisingly I’ve voted in

Unsurprisingly I’ve voted in.

The EU is flawed, but a system for countries and peoples to work together collaboratively and democratically to solve common problems is better than the alternative.

The economic risk of Brexit is very real. We hear a lot about the £350 million that the Brexiteers say is sent to Brussels every week. Aside from being a deliberate and cynical lie, it’s also smaller than the £450 million in inward investment to the UK that we get every week in large part because of our position in the EU – and a tiny proportion of our £35 billion per week economy and and £15 billion per week government spending. A 1% drop in the economy if we leave will wipe out the “£350 million” in a flash. Anything more than that and we will be worse off. The uncertainly that a vote for Brexit will cause will also have an immediate impact as investors pull their money out of the UK, the pound drops (because fewer people want pounds) and things that are priced in Euros and Dollars (like food, oil and holidays) cost us more. It’s not just the threat to jobs that will hit the economy as investment falls, but a collapsing pound will mean that everyone will be worse off…

We’ve heard a lot about sovereignty. One question I’ve repeatedly asked – and never had an answer to – is “Name a law or regulation – that the democratically elected UK government or democratically elected MEPs didn’t back – that has been imposed on us.” And then there’s silence. I realise people are concerned that we’re being bossed around by Brussels – but surely it’s not unreasonable to ask for a single example of how. I’m still waiting.

There are a lot of issues that this referendum has thrown up that we need to address – housing, pressure on public services, and how we ensure that we create a society where all members are able to look to the future with a sense of positivity and optimism. But most of those problems come from decisions made in the UK – not in Europe – and it’s in the UK that we must find solutions to them. And if the EU does things that work against these goals, we should try to change it, not run away.

And we do need a positive vision for the future of Europe. The question of “where do we go next in Europe?” is an important one. There needs to be much more transparency – real effort put into better ways of engaging people in how decisions are made – and continued efforts to ensure that the EU is genuinely a “people’s Europe” that is responsive to the needs and concerns of people across the continent.

But in the end, I believe in collaboration, cooperation and reducing barriers between peoples and countries. I believe it in my work life. I believe it in my politics. I believe it in my private life. I have friends in countries all over the world. And I believe the more friendship, the more collaboration and the greater the reduction in the sense of ‘other’ in relationships with people around the world, the better for us all.

‪#‎in‬

Categories
Europe

Your questions answered: Europe

As promised elsewhere, I will answer any questions received on this blog in public (unless the questioner specifically asks for a private answer).

Question:

The Winchester Whisperer asks:

What about the LD abstention on the vote last night. If you’d been the MP for Winchester would you have abstained?

Answer:

No. I would have voted for a referendum.

I was a parliamentary candidate at the last election and this is what our manifesto promised:

MAKE EUROPE MORE EFFECTIVE AND DEMOCRATIC
Membership of the EU has been hugely important for British jobs, environmental protection, equality rights, and Britain’s place in the world. But with enlargement to twenty-five member states, the EU needs reform to become more efficient and more accountable. The new constitution helps to achieve this by improving EU coherence, strengthening the powers of the elected European Parliament compared with the Council of Ministers, allowing proper oversight of the unelected Commission, and enhancing the role of national parliaments. It also more clearly defines and limits the powers of the EU, reflecting diversity and preventing overcentralisation. We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain’s interest – but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people.

In response to the change from the Constitutional Treaty to the Lisbon Treaty, I personally see three possible lines of argument:

  • It’s not the same as the Constitutional Treaty.  It’s a smaller revising treaty. So I’m not bound by my promise at the last election.
    • Although several people have argued that Lisbon has a different role and works a different way, see Quaequam Blog for an example, in the end, I’m not convinced – I think we need to compare the overall effect of the two treaties, not the way they work.  While I admit the two treaties are not identical, I don’t believe the end-point is different enough to justify a different response. If the start point is the same and the end point is nearly the same, then I don’t believe the intermediate step should be treated differently.
  • I’ve changed my mind. I was wrong to propose a referendum on the EU Constitution – since I now think referenda are wrong for issues of this complexity.
    • There are definite issues with this particular referendum because it’s a complex treaty and there are many people and publishers who would be keen to turn the referendum into a ‘do you like what you’ve heard about the EU?’ vote. It would have been a major challenge to ensure the substance of the treaty was addressed.
    • However, in practice, the EU Constitution was, if anything, more complex than Lisbon, not less – the same problems would have applied – and I made a public commitment to supporting a referendum on that.  I’m also committed to a referendum on EU membership – so, while convenient, I also don’t think this argument stacks up (unless I’d genuinely had a Damascene conversion on referenda and also opposed the one on EU membership – and I haven’t and don’t).  I’ve also previously stated publicly my liking for the clause in the Swiss constitution permitting a ‘delete all and replace’ referendum if 100,000 people propose a new national constitution: a generic ‘anti all referendums’ line would not be true to my previously stated beliefs.
  • We promised a referendum on a treaty on Maastricht, and on a treaty that takes us to almost the same point as Lisbon, so we should stick to our guns and vote for a referendum.
    • As I understand it, all the elements of the Constitutional Treaty we praised at the last election are still in the Lisbon Treaty. (I’m open to be corrected on this).
    • At least for me personally, the duck test therefore applies*. We need to treat the Lisbon Treaty in the same way we committed to treat the Constitutional Treaty. 

So, what would I have done in the Commons on Thursday night?

  • I’d have voted for an in/out referendum
  • I’d have voted for a Lisbon referendum

If they had passed, I’d then have campaigned for the UK to stay in the EU and for us to ratify the Lisbon treaty.

Is Lisbon enough?  No.  The EU still needs further reform to be more open, more accountable and more easy to understand for the peoples of Europe.

I once found a quote that summarised my feelings about the EU (and many other institutions) I think from Mill:

My love for an institution is in proportion to my desire to reform it.

There’s a lot to do to make Europe work better for British people: more open, more accountable, less fraud and waste, with stronger action on climate change and reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy.

But those are matters for a separate blog post.

* A strict user of the ‘duck test’ could argue that while Lisbon has a very similar end point to the constitutional treaty (‘quacks like a duck’) it doesn’t look the same as the constitutional treaty (much shorter etc, not ‘delete all and replace’) – so it doesn’t actually ‘look like a duck’ and so the duck test doesn’t apply – but there’s been enough sophistry in this debate already.