24 October 2008
Overcome with emotion
It’s been a strange week for statements about the European Union and why we should support it. Government ministers here and in Brussels have been musing on the issue in public, not always in a helpful manner.
In Brussels, first, the EU institutions have reached a joint agreement regarding communication. They will work together in planning and prioritising how they communicate Europe to citizens. This, apparently is new, even “a little bit of history”. If various different parts of the EU system are trying to do the same thing, it makes sense for them to be coordinated. (The same lesson could be usefully learned by the people who run foreign policy, but that’s another story.)
However, there is always a downside. Margot Wallström is quoted as saying that result in the Irish referendum on Lisbon was down to "emotional arguments and disinformation", and the anti-Europeans think this is a bad thing. She shouldn’t patronise or belittle the people who voted No, or suggest that their votes were in error. A vote is a vote is a vote.
But is this really true? Are we entitled to look beyond the actual vote to look at the reasons as well? On this question, you will not be surprised to learn, the anti-Europeans are inconsistent.
Many of them claim that their Yes votes in 1975, on Britain’s membership of the EEC, were for something other than what we got. Some say they voted for a free trade area and not a political institution (well, we left a free trade area to join the EEC), or that Edward Heath lied to them about sovereignty (read the statements he made and you find that he was quite clear on that score). So the reasons why they voted the way they did do matter.
For people who vote No, though, it is different. Whatever the reason they voted No, those reasons should respected, protected as though they were rare orchids. How dare Margot Wallström come in and tread all over their delicate blooms with her brutal, insensitive facts. If people want to vote No to the Lisbon treaty because they are against conscription to a European army, they must be allowed to do so. Unfair to point out that the Lisbon treaty actually contains nothing that leads to conscription to a European army. She should have more respect.
But do emotions count in politics? What happens if someone votes the right way for the wrong reasons: is that a regrettable outcome, or simply part of the game?
My view is that there is truth on both sides. In the end, what counts are the votes in the ballot box, not the reasons why voters put them there. Part of the skill of a political campaigner is to get the debate on to the ground where it is more likely to be helpful. (That’s why the Democracy Movement has chosen that name, for example. They think that claiming to be democrats will be more seductive than claiming to be nationalists.) If the pro-European campaigners don’t like the ground they are fighting on, they need to be more skilful themselves.
But on the other hand, there needs to be a certain honesty about the arguments used. Arguing against the Lisbon treaty in the name of preserving national corporate taxation isn’t fair, given that the Lisbon treaty itself preserves national control of corporate tax. The debate should be about the things the treaty does say and not about the things it doesn’t.
And worse than the politicians and campaigners are the newspapers. They have a huge ability to reach the public, enormous sums of money at their disposal and a completely shameless attitude. Add to that the fact that they are completely unregulated and we have a real problem on our hands.
All that fuss over whether George Osborne asked for £50,000 from Oleg Deripaska. £50,000 would buy one page in the Daily Mail. Think what the value of all that biased and tormenting coverage adds up to in the end. If newspapers behaved with a sense of responsibility and restraint, then it would not matter, but too many of them do not. It is fine for newspapers to have opinions, but not to tell lies.
But the Lord helps those who help themselves, and the pro-Europeans have not always been their own best friends. The new Europe minister, Caroline Flint, attempted to set out the case for Europe in a speech this week, where to be pro-European is to eat pizza and shop at Zara. That’s hardly enough, is it? I’m all in favour of making an emotional case for Europe but it needs to be a bit better than that.
A speech that denies that the UK is a “half-hearted partner in Europe” doesn’t really grasp what’s going on, nor does a government minister who can say “I’ve yet to meet a European politician who wants a federal Europe.” It is fine to say that what matters are the problems of delivery of policy and not debate about the institutional flaws, but what happens when the problems of delivery of policy are the institutional flaws. The simple hope that “this institutional era is starting to draw to a close” at some point has to confront the reality of a half-built EU.
No-one is demanding that people should love the EU, but people do need to identify with it if it is to thrive. Any kind of political institution needs the engagement of its citizens and not merely their acquiescence. The choice of Yes or No to Europe is more than a simple choice about where to go to eat this evening.
In Brussels, first, the EU institutions have reached a joint agreement regarding communication. They will work together in planning and prioritising how they communicate Europe to citizens. This, apparently is new, even “a little bit of history”. If various different parts of the EU system are trying to do the same thing, it makes sense for them to be coordinated. (The same lesson could be usefully learned by the people who run foreign policy, but that’s another story.)
However, there is always a downside. Margot Wallström is quoted as saying that result in the Irish referendum on Lisbon was down to "emotional arguments and disinformation", and the anti-Europeans think this is a bad thing. She shouldn’t patronise or belittle the people who voted No, or suggest that their votes were in error. A vote is a vote is a vote.
But is this really true? Are we entitled to look beyond the actual vote to look at the reasons as well? On this question, you will not be surprised to learn, the anti-Europeans are inconsistent.
Many of them claim that their Yes votes in 1975, on Britain’s membership of the EEC, were for something other than what we got. Some say they voted for a free trade area and not a political institution (well, we left a free trade area to join the EEC), or that Edward Heath lied to them about sovereignty (read the statements he made and you find that he was quite clear on that score). So the reasons why they voted the way they did do matter.
For people who vote No, though, it is different. Whatever the reason they voted No, those reasons should respected, protected as though they were rare orchids. How dare Margot Wallström come in and tread all over their delicate blooms with her brutal, insensitive facts. If people want to vote No to the Lisbon treaty because they are against conscription to a European army, they must be allowed to do so. Unfair to point out that the Lisbon treaty actually contains nothing that leads to conscription to a European army. She should have more respect.
But do emotions count in politics? What happens if someone votes the right way for the wrong reasons: is that a regrettable outcome, or simply part of the game?
My view is that there is truth on both sides. In the end, what counts are the votes in the ballot box, not the reasons why voters put them there. Part of the skill of a political campaigner is to get the debate on to the ground where it is more likely to be helpful. (That’s why the Democracy Movement has chosen that name, for example. They think that claiming to be democrats will be more seductive than claiming to be nationalists.) If the pro-European campaigners don’t like the ground they are fighting on, they need to be more skilful themselves.
But on the other hand, there needs to be a certain honesty about the arguments used. Arguing against the Lisbon treaty in the name of preserving national corporate taxation isn’t fair, given that the Lisbon treaty itself preserves national control of corporate tax. The debate should be about the things the treaty does say and not about the things it doesn’t.
And worse than the politicians and campaigners are the newspapers. They have a huge ability to reach the public, enormous sums of money at their disposal and a completely shameless attitude. Add to that the fact that they are completely unregulated and we have a real problem on our hands.
All that fuss over whether George Osborne asked for £50,000 from Oleg Deripaska. £50,000 would buy one page in the Daily Mail. Think what the value of all that biased and tormenting coverage adds up to in the end. If newspapers behaved with a sense of responsibility and restraint, then it would not matter, but too many of them do not. It is fine for newspapers to have opinions, but not to tell lies.
But the Lord helps those who help themselves, and the pro-Europeans have not always been their own best friends. The new Europe minister, Caroline Flint, attempted to set out the case for Europe in a speech this week, where to be pro-European is to eat pizza and shop at Zara. That’s hardly enough, is it? I’m all in favour of making an emotional case for Europe but it needs to be a bit better than that.
A speech that denies that the UK is a “half-hearted partner in Europe” doesn’t really grasp what’s going on, nor does a government minister who can say “I’ve yet to meet a European politician who wants a federal Europe.” It is fine to say that what matters are the problems of delivery of policy and not debate about the institutional flaws, but what happens when the problems of delivery of policy are the institutional flaws. The simple hope that “this institutional era is starting to draw to a close” at some point has to confront the reality of a half-built EU.
No-one is demanding that people should love the EU, but people do need to identify with it if it is to thrive. Any kind of political institution needs the engagement of its citizens and not merely their acquiescence. The choice of Yes or No to Europe is more than a simple choice about where to go to eat this evening.
Posted by Richard Laming at 17:55
Are you seriously proposing that the media SHOULD be regulated?
If so, what sort of regulating did you have in mind?
Richard Laming's typical anti-British sentiments are well represented in this comment... as well as the usual deliberate EU distortions of the facts.
To try and claim that Edward Heath was upfront about the intentions of the EEC is as close to an outrageous lie as you need to get. Fortunately most people can see through the likes of Richard Laming and his bias EU propaganda just one of the reasons why the EU remains so unpopular.
Edward Heath is known for his comment 'there will be no loss of essential sovereignty' which was designed to deceive... just like Richard Laming's comments are fundamentally dishonest now. Edward Heath is not known for his support for a Political Union.
He refers to pro-Europeans as those amongst us who support the EU. I am vigorously pro-European and I despise everything the EU stands for... as far as I am concerned if your are pro-EU you are anti European because you oppose democracy in Europe.
I notice the all too frequently used 'anti-European' insult mentioned twice in this comment. The term is of course used deliberately as an insult and is derogatory towards anybody who does not agree with or support the EU.
Of course anybody with a brain knows that this is the intent - to insult those with an opposing view and that is the tactic - i.e. avoid the issue and the truth and stick with the insults.
Those of us who value national independence for all nations in Europe (as the only way to protect individual freedoms) are the pro-Europeans and people like Richard Laming who take every opportunity to sponsor the EU under the guise of being a pro-European are the anti-Brits and anti-Europeans.
He goes on... 'it is fine for newspapers to have opinions but not to tell lies' that's rich. I don't see him pointing out that the whole EU project is one big lie.
What Richard Laming is blind to is that there is a growing resentment across Europe about the EU and everything it stands for. The citizens of each country will eventually force its destruction to be replaced once again by national democracies... whether the EU likes it or not.
I am not an EU citizen... and forcing this upon me with the so-called responsibilities (and eventually the taxes) is exactly what revolutions are made of.
Nobody asked my permission - I am told I am an EU citizen and I must give allegiance to this new political construct... well I say F**K the EU precisely because it did not seek my approval.
I am sick and tired of people like Richard Laming linking the EU with Europe as those it is one and the same and taking sideswipes at the real democrats amongst us.
If you are 'for Europe' and 'for Europeans' then take your head out of your a**e and wake up to where the EU is taking us - more conflict but this time it is the EU and not Germany that is the trouble maker.
Let me make myself perfectly clear.
F**K EU
"(That’s why the Democracy Movement has chosen that name, for example. They think that claiming to be democrats will be more seductive than claiming to be nationalists.)"
Ever think they may actually *be* democrats, and you're the euro-nationalist?
The EU is only about re-drawing the borders of the nation state on a wider, far less democratic scale.
The 'co-operation' excuse for the EU is so much crap because it's perfectly possible to co-operate with other countries without passing ever more decision-making powers to central, barely accountable institutions.
Pure and simple, the EU debate is about a power grab - political elite versus Europe's peoples. Really, whose side are *you* on?
"If people want to vote No to the Lisbon treaty because they are against conscription to a European army ..."
Sorry, but *who* actually claimed this? This has more than a whiff of EU-fanatic straw man tactic - make up a 'myth' and then knock it down. Because you can't actually deal with what EU-critics are *really* saying.
MikeH - I think you have this guy well sussed - he is just another one of these Euro fanatics and an anti-Brit.
Mikeh: straw man? Try this in the Times on 10 September:
"Meanwhile, 33 per cent thought that the introduction of conscription into a pan-European army was part of the Lisbon Treaty while 34 per cent believed that it would strip Ireland of its control over abortion policy."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4726428.ece
The way the Lisbon Treaty was written i.e. deliberately unreadable it would be perfectly understandable if 99% of the Irish voters thought that the treaty made Ireland a province of the UK.
The deceitful Eurocrats and politicians got their comeuppance because once again they were too clever for their own good. Now we will see all the treaty provisions brought in through the back door leaving this lot once again discredited as leaders.
The question is... when the people eventually revolt as they most certainly will - should it be a guillotine or a noose? I favour the noose myself... and higher taxes for the quislings who have supported this disgusting anti-democracy agenda.
Here is another example of the conscription myth, an article by an Open Europe researcher in the Sunday Times on 25 May, three weeks before the vote: "If Ireland votes yes, it will be conscripted into an EU army"
Post a Comment
Back to the top