Beware the European Constitution
I heard Lord Rees-Mogg speak at lunchtime about the prospects for a Conservative win at the next election. Part of his speech was about Europe and he said that the Treaty of Rome will be 50 years old on March 25th and on that day in 2007 Chanceller Merkel will publish the Berlin Declaration. He thinks this will aim to restore key parts of the European Constitution and that we'll be asked to support it. Europe is an uncomfortable topic for Conservatives but he thinks David Cameron should make the Party's stance very clear: no way!
posted by Whispering Walls at 2:54 pm
4 Comments:
I always find it reassuring that on one key point, both Tony Benn and the Maastricht rebels can agree - this EU project has been conceived in error, proposed in secret, and promoted with lies, and we are now being asked to give up yet more sovereignty with no democratic chance to vote it away.
I am not trying to criticise the Tories here - we have all to a lesser or greater extent been duped over Europe, and its secretive, anti-democratic credentials. But sadly since Ted Heath took us in having been 'sold a line' and Mrs Thatcher signed the 'Single European Act' we have lost a great deal of our room for independent manoeuvre as a nation.
Our trade with Europe is important, but don't think it troubles China at all that they aren't a part of the EU - they will sell to anyone.
Thatcher learned the lesson, but I am afraid Major then compounded the error, and allowed Blair to jump on his 'never alone in Europe' tosh.
We came within a whisker of 'Mandy' Mandelson talking the PM to taking us into the Euro without a vote. I am pleased that Gordon Brown did at least put the kybosh on that pdq.
The trouble is, rather as with ID cards, much of the damage has already been done. So that Tony and his cronies can say, 'Ah, yes, it is only a small step further on the road to integration'. But that small step brings us closer to the point where it will be, for all practical purposes, irreversible.
And that would be a disaster for the United Kingdom.
Bliar and his cronies have been comprehensively duped by ALL the Europeans over the last 10 years. He thought ( unbelievable naively) that negotiating and conceding would mean he got his way ( whatever that might have been, even assuming this completely non-principled lot HAD one). Now, not only are we worse off financially, we are worse off in every department imaginable, because, surprise,surprise, every other country fought for their OWN interests. Bliar simply gave ours away.
If only the European Union was to abolish the CAP and common external tariff and Europe might be enabled to achieve comparative advantage as a service based economy while allowing Africa and the third world to grow by importing their food. The 40 billion Euros saved from abolishing the CAP could be used in supply-side policy educating rural areas to provide services and produce hi-tech goods. Moreover 50,000 people that die every day in Africa would have a much higher chance of survival.
As with regard to European integration, if the Euro zone countries do not integrate fiscally then they will have slow economic growth for years as their economic cycles will be out of sync and the interest rate will continue to be a compromise.
Their must be two-tier Europe where we stay in the slow lane and only integrate further if we adopt the Euro (hopefully never).
kinglear - you make some very good points here. What I would say is that even if there had been someone less naive in Number 10, it is very likely that Europe would still have had their 'wicked way' with the United Kingdom's sovereignty.
Mrs Thatcher, you will recall, was no shrinking violet when it came to the Europeans, and got us our rebate. Her famous 'No, No, No', speech in the House of Commons indicated her opposition to the federalist dream.
But she signed the Single European Act, because when Europe knows of opposition to a motion they lie and deceive over the nature of a treaty being signed. Was it ever thus.
Part of the problem lies in the difference between the 'spirit' of a treaty, usually covered in the 'preamble' to it, and the 'letter', covered in verbose detail in the treaty itself.
The French appear to allow the 'preamble' to take precedence over the letter of the law which is what is important to the English.
So that the French, especially, can point to the grandiose nonsense about 'ever closer union', being 'communitaire' or whatever other tosh they are trying to sell. We can then argue over the 'fine print' but the French just see that as getting bogged down in detail.
I've never understood what vision or mission the European overlords are trying to sell to us. Sure, the fact that it has kept the peace is great, although there are many in the Balkans who would dispute even that.
Post a Comment
<< Home