Gerry Hassan: Eurosceptics blind to danger of a pyrrhic victory

Published on Saturday 19 November 2011 11:54

Any future vote for withdrawal from Europe would itself precipitate a deeper crisis in the United Kingdom

THE European crisis has already told us many things; that the eurozone in its current form is not sustainable; that German leadership of the continent is going to become more pronounced; and that Greece, Italy and maybe one or two others are going to have decades of European-inflicted austerity.

Another factor is Britain’s continued role as the awkward, distant partner in Europe; a country which sees the project as something it was hoodwinked into by its political establishment – and not allowed a European vote for nearly 40 years.

What we don’t explore beyond glib definitions is what kind of Britain and British identity are we articulating? Is it, as some claim, still the “mother of parliaments”, the time-honoured defender of liberty, free speech and minorities? Or is it a City-dominated deregulation utopia, a bastion of Anglo-Saxon hunter-gatherer capitalism only held back by the Eurosclerosis of Brussels bureaucrats?

Recently the opinion pollster YouGov has undertaken a UK survey on peoples’ different national identities and perceptions on Britain and the European Union. It found a direct relationship between national identity and Euroscepticism. If you choose an English identity as 63 per cent of respondents did, you are more likely to have a Eurosceptic opinion, whereas if you identify as British (19 per cent), Scottish (8 per cent) or Welsh (5 per cent) you are more likely to be pro-European.

English identifying voters are more likely to want to leave the EU by a margin of 58 per cent to 26 per cent, whereas British voters wanted to remain in the EU by 46 per cent to 37 per cent. Scottish and Welsh voters are closer to British voters.

Peter Kellner, writing in Prospect magazine about this, stated: “What distinguishes people who call themselves ‘English’ is a passion for keeping other countries at arm’s length” and continues, “Whisper it softly, but is Englishness these days a source not just of pride but also insecurity?”

Kellner has hit the nail on the head. The British growing detachment from the European project is wrapped up in the crisis of the British state and how Englishness is changing and evolving in a Britain and world fast-changing and filled with uncertainty.

Westminster politicians of a Eurosceptic persuasion tend to think they speak for British interests when they rail against Brussels, Euro-federalism or some supposed German-French plot. In actual fact, they speak without knowing it for a very partial, narrow English interpretation of Britain and Europe. They stand against sharing sovereignty in a European union, invoke parliamentary sovereignty and British rights and jobs, without recognising that they already share sovereignty in a political union: the United Kingdom. And that their version of undiluted political power in Westminster is now obsolete and under attack from the way the world operates and how power is held in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

The same poll found a UK 51 per cent to 32 per cent majority for withdrawal from the EU. This is unlikely to happen in the immediate future, but there is a growing Euroscepticism in British public opinion over the last 20 years. If this trend continues as looks likely, and at some point in the future a majority Tory government is elected, it is possible the UK will have an independence referendum. Then it is highly likely that a majority of the public will vote for withdrawal.

If this happens it would be a huge moment for the UK and have great consequences for the British union. UK withdrawal would not lead to a return to the pre-1973 Britain, to corned beef and Commonwealth relations being how “we” see the world. It would also precipitate a deeper crisis in the UK and could easily make Scottish independence more likely.

Tory Euroscepticism could, in defending an out-of-date, archaic union, lead to the end of the union they are so passionate to defend.

David Cameron talked this week of “we Eurosceptics” and promised to repatriate significant powers from Brussels. Both he and George Osborne see the current European crisis as an opportunity to grandstand against Europe, feed their backbenchers some Euro bones, and ratchet up the rhetoric.

They will not succeed in repatriating powers because the politics of the euro crisis and its 17 members is one in which Britain has no direct clout or power, and seems to have little strategy or acumen.

It is a very different climate from when John Major at the time of the Maastricht Treaty could negotiate the European social chapter opt-out; then the treaty required unanimous ratification across the EU and Britain had a veto; today with the euro no such British veto exists.

UK influence in Europe is at an all-time low. European politicians are fed up of being lectured by our politicians, hence Nicolas Sarkozy’s remarks to Cameron telling him to “shut up”.

What European politicians, governments and public need to understand is that the Britain our Westminster politicians represent is dramatically divided. The British political class are giving voice to a very English insular identity, which is only one voice of England.

The future of Britain’s relationship with Europe and the wider world will be decided by what England emerges, influenced by the European crisis, Scotland and deeper, profound changes in the global economy.

For too long, many people on the left have been happy to see the idea of “England” and centre-right politics as synonymous. Some even argue that the Scots and Welsh are needed in the UK to tame the English tiger and prevent it from exploding into some hard right xenophobic embrace. This is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy: abandon “England” to the fantasies of the right and it will come about; only dare counter it with a rather limp, unconvincing Britishness and who knows what will happen.

There are many different Englands, just as there are many different Scotlands and Europes, and it is time the English centre-left started speaking and acting in an English voice.

Comments

There are 10 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

10

Independence for England

Monday, November 21, 2011 at 07:22 PM

"It would also precipitate a deeper crisis in the UK and could easily make Scottish independence more likely". Sounds good to me!

• Report Unsuitable

9

florian albert

Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 07:38 PM

Talk about Britain's (or Scotland's) future in Europe is academic until we find out what emerges from the present Euro crisis. What is undeniable is that the initial single-currency union has, by its own terms, failed. That there is less euro-scepticism in Scotland may not be an entirely good thing. Scots may not realize (yet) how impotent smaller countries are in the grand scheme of things. It is unlikely that any politician in Ireland will be campaigning on a platform of 'Independence in Europe' in the near future. A more immediate problem is the extent of political disengagement here in Scotland. There was a turnout of less than 14% of voters in a council by-election in one of the more prosperous areas of Glasgow this week.

• Report Unsuitable

8

Michael Patterson

Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 07:18 PM

Comment removed by moderator

7

Beachdair

Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 04:03 PM

Kon #6 - Did it ever occur to you that you can scroll past posts you don't want to read? I also happen not to like yours, but I read most of them just to see what type of misinformation you will post next. BTW, is that the papal 'we' or the royal 'we' that you used in post #6?

• Report Unsuitable

6

Kon

Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 02:24 PM

1 Beachdair, quit with the copy\paste you do each and every day on EU articles, we already know what you think.

• Report Unsuitable

5

The Tin Man

Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 01:46 AM

...And 13% of people in Glasgow Hillhead identified themselves as 'voters' yesterday. And that is about schooling, and getting their bins emptied, never mind nebulous EU policy. Only about 1 in 10 people are particular interested in politics nowadays.

• Report Unsuitable

4

Beachdair

Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 01:26 AM

Post #3 continued - ******************************************************* One propaganda myth has to be dispelled here. It is untrue that the EFTA side of the EEA has to accept all the EU economic legislation as it stands without consultation. Under Articles 99 to 101 of the EEA Agreement the EFTA members of the EEA have exactly the same rights as its EU members as regards participation in the drafting of economic legislation. This includes alterations to existing EU regulations, and membership of relevant EU Commission committees.**************************************************************** EEA membership would allow the unhindered restoration of the Scottish fishing industry and other wealth creators that are presently being strangled by EU ideology. It would free Scottish agriculture from the Brussels straitjacket. This move alone could result in a substantial rejuvenation of the Scottish economy.********************** A move to the EFTA side of the EEA, from Scotland’s present part-membership of the EU side, would cause no disruption whatever to Scotland’s economic links with Europe, which would continue unchanged. No action would be required to leave the EU side of the EEA – since Scotland as such has never been a member of the EU it only needs to refrain from applying to join.**************************** Independent Scotland should have nothing to do with the EU, but should conduct its business as a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) of the European Economic Area (EEA) as Norway and Switzerland have done.

• Report Unsuitable

3

Beachdair

Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 01:23 AM

Post #2 continued - ******************************************************* Another reason there can be no question of Scottish membership of the EU is because it requires new members to commit to adopting the ‘euro’ currency. As is now well known, the ‘euro’ has been and continues to be a major disaster Membership would also involve a commitment to participate in EU military operations outside Europe, along with other considerations.****************************************** Do most Scots want that? ********************************************The EEA provides open access to the Single European Market as well as the European research and development facilities, allows participation in drafting EU legislation, leaves Scotland its own fishing and agriculture policies and more, and provides all the economic benefits Scotland needs. The EEA is in effect the Common Market continuing, which is the limit to what was approved by the Scottish voters in the 1975 referendum. No degree of European integration beyond this has democratic legitimacy in Scotland.

• Report Unsuitable

2

Beachdair

Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 01:20 AM

Scotland’s share of the UK’s annual EU “dues” was £845 million in 2010, up from £532 million in earlier years because of Scotland’s proportion of the IMF and direct aid to the Eurozone. £845 million is more than £162 for every man, woman and bairn in Scotland – after all EU "grants" have been accounted for. That cost will rise every year. The EU takes Scotland’s money, deducts its own huge overheads, and returns only a minute portion of the remainder to Scotland in "grants”, which are only a tiny fraction of our own money being returned.************************************************************* Any economic advantages of the European Union can be realised through Scottish membership of the 30-member European Economic Area (EEA), which includes all of the EU member countries. The economic benefits of the EEA would be further enhanced by membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), whose 20 trading agreements with other parts of the world are not open to EU members.***************************************************** As an EFTAEEA member Scotland would be liable for a contribution of about £200 million to the EEA solidarity fund for weaker EEA member states. It is NOT a contribution to the general EU funds. The EFTAEEA contribution is less than a quarter of the EU amount.*************************************************************** How many Scottish jobs could be created with the difference?

• Report Unsuitable

1

Beachdair

Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 01:16 AM

I cannot speak for those who identify themselves as Welsh or 'brits' but I suppose that most people who identify themselves as Scots are not really aware of what a disaster the EU has been for Scotland.******************************************************************* Independent Scotland should NOT become a member of the European Union. The UK’s membership of the EU has been the greatest disaster to befall Scotland since the 1707 Treaty of Union. The EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) alone is costing Scotland considerably more than £1,500 million in lost wealth creation every year. The EU has destroyed tens of thousands of jobs through the CFP. What the figures cannot reveal is the amount of personal tragedy and communal disruption that lie behind them: bankruptcies, the uprooting of individuals and families, the destruction of thriving communities with centuries-old cultural traditions and communal lives. Major harbours, like Lossiemouth, that were the focus of social and economic life twelve months in the year, are now marinas for a handful of yachts. One can imagine the reaction if the EU had reduced the Spanish or French fishing fleets by two thirds simply to make way for incomers. And fishing is by no means as important to those countries as it is to Scotland. The gross incompetence of the EU fisheries management of the CFP continues to this day. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU controls all “marine biological resources” (i.e. from whales and basking sharks down to the last frond of seaweed) in Scotland's Exclusive Economic Zone seas. Under existing EU legislation, all national waters right up to the beaches will come under exclusive EU fisheries competence from the end of 2012, and will be regulated under EU law and not Scots law. Since the Lisbon Treaty also transfers powers over energy to Brussels, fishing is obviously only the thin end of a wedge that will eventually see all marine resources coming under Brussels control. So much for Scotland’s oil...********************************************* Do most Scots want that?

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.