Driving into work this morning, we were discussing a fundamental and long lasting decision we're about to have to make about our future. No, I'm not referring to whether we should catch up with Hinterland tomorrow, or watch Young Montalbano, (that's easy, Hinterland every time), but about the future of the UK and the yes or no decision on leaving the European Union.
The general consensus was that at the last general election
in May the Conservatives were forced to promise a referendum because if they
hadn’t, we might all have voted for UKIP , which would in turn have led to another
hung parliament. The Conservatives didn’t want that and so promised a referendum
of their own over Europe to ensure they won the election.
Whether or not that
is exactly how it came to be, we’re about to be faced with the most important (voting) decision
we’re ever likely to be asked to make. Unlike a general election where you can
get it wrong, on the basis that another one will be a long in a minute, this
vote will last forever. Or at least until the next time.
So it’s pretty important...
The whole argument has been rumbling on for years of course. Us Brits have never been comfortable Europeans. I
remember the last referendum, in the 70’s – although that was over whether or
not to stay in something called the Common Market – which was an entirely
different beast. Now we’re being asked whether or not we want to
stay in what is fast becoming a federal union, where our government has less power
with each passing year and where ultimately, there will be no need for a local government at all. Which I'm sure is 'their' plan.
Currently David Cameron is trotting around Europe, trying to
bring about reform, in order that he can present to us a credible ‘stay-in’
argument on the basis of the changes he has been able to bring about.
There are (at least) two fundamental problems with this:
Firstly – he’s going to lose 28-0. He’s trying to change
things that the majority of other members are perfectly happy with. Why would
they change for us? I wouldn’t.
Secondly – in order to make our decision it would be quite
helpful to know precisely what he’s trying to achieve on our behalf. I’m an
avid news watcher but still can’t quite work out what his list of requirements
is. I’m aware of the immigrant/benefits argument for example, but that’s pretty
much it. What else? Are we to make this decision purely on the basis of
restricted benefits for incoming people? Important as that issue is, there must
be more to it than that surely?
I’m a Libran. My vote floats. So right now, if I voted
today, I’d leave. I have no idea who my Euro MP is. I’ve never voted in
European elections. I am not aware of any specific benefits that belonging to
Europe brings me and I really don't care that all our bananas are now the same size. I know that’s a selfish view, ‘me’, but it’s my vote – so I
need to be persuaded about things that will benefit my immediate family.
Pro-Europeans tell us that it would be a disaster for British
business if we left. Really? Why? Will the whole of Europe stop buying Nissan's
built in Sunderland? I doubt it. We’re a world trader. What has being in the
Union to do with buying goods from China, or Kia’s from Korea? We’re not
in the Eurozone, so not financially aligned with the rest of Europe in any
case, so what difference to trade would leaving really make?
If you’re a pro-European business leader and can provide
some specific cast-iron reasons for staying, I’m perfectly happy to listen. But
no woolly arguments please. Hard facts only. (because there are an equal number of business people who say leaving wont hurt at all - and both camps cant be right).
Some people say that Wales (for example) would be
doomed without European funding that helps many investment projects here. But surely free money, or at least very low interest loans are
available from pretty much anywhere at the moment aren’t they? It doesn’t specifically
have to be European money we're borrowing does it? After all, incoming investment over
the last 20 years or so has come from other parts of the world and wasn’t
dependent on our membership of the Union.
Talking of which, this week Wales has suffered a massive
employment ‘hit’ with the loss of 1000 jobs at Tata steel in Port Talbot. This
is a disaster for the people who have lost their jobs and the town. Being
European didn’t prevent this – and I’m well aware that the steel industries
problems are global – but the weakened UK government didn’t appear to do
anything to stop this and indeed, said that European legislation actually prevented them from doing anything.
Wouldn’t it have been useful if the government had stepped
in, subsidised the plant for a period, lowered energy costs and business rates and perhaps
temporarily seen it through this difficult period? I know that’s a simplistic argument and I’d never advocate nationalising major industries, but
the crux is that European competition legislation appears to have stopped our
government doing anything useful at all.
The Europeans must be pretty fed up with us at the moment. We've never been really keen Europeans have we. It's always been a them and us situation. We don't call ourselves European. Europeans are the people who live over the sea from Dover.They don't see a need to change for David Cameron, or any one else and why should they, but on the other hand, their club would be severely weakened without one of their star strikers, so they really would like us to stay.
Comments
Post a Comment