The interview starts with the following words:
His campaigns might have ensured that Britain said non to the euro and nein to the European constitution, but Lord Leach of Fairford isn’t saying no to European Union membership this time around.To begin with saying non to the euro and nein to the European constitution (that, too, was more of a French project than a German one) was never the same as saying no to European Union membership. This is shoddy journalism but what can we expect from the Standard?
In any case, the word "might" here is not used as a supposition or, in other words, the assumption is that Rodney Leach's campaign did ensure that Britain said ...... Oh really? I was under the impression that it was a combination of Sir James Goldsmith's Referendum Party and Gordon Brown's petulant but useful desire to stymie Tony Blair that ensured Britain's non-participation in the euro. It is true that Mr Leach's (as he then was) organization, Business for Sterling, helped to strengthen the already existing public dislike for the euro and he did manage to persuade some business leaders that staying out of what was clearly an economic disaster would be a good idea. However, as I once pointed out to one of Mr Leach's minions, it would have been then and would be now courteous and graceful to acknowledge the work done among business leaders to counter the CBI propaganda by the British Management Data Foundation and its founder, Brigadier Anthony Cowgill long before any Leach organization was even thought of.
As to saying nein to the European constitution, that is an even more doubtful proposition, as the Constitution for Europe was resurrected in the shape of the Lisbon Treaty and has been transmogrified into the Consolidated Treaties, published by the selfsame BMDF. Last I checked, the United Kingdom was still legally obliged to implement all its provisions.
The rest of the interview merely points out how incredibly sensible and influential Lord Leach is and how people are bound to listen to him, particularly as he wants to make sure that the EU's various directives and regulations are changed in order to save the City of London. Once again, we hear very little as to how that might be achieved but no doubt the bright boys and girls of Open Europe will explain it all to us in detail. I am not holding my breath.
Do read the article; it won't take long. But whether you do or you don't there is one thing that we must all remember: Open Europe together with a number of other supposedly eurosceptic organizations will use all its resources (and they are not to be sniffed at) to support the IN campaign, should there be a referendum on the subject.
I am no supporter of Open Europe, but I cannot see that reforming the EU, or changing our status within it, is an "astonishing development ".
ReplyDeleteThere used to be another eurosceptic "of course-ism" - the collapse of the euro. I believed the mainstream eurosceptics were (regretfully) wrong about that, and said so at the time.
Real reform of the UK's position is tenable for exactly the same reason - the politicians who run the EU (and the EZ) will do anything to keep their show on the road. This may mean (temporarily) appeasing the British people for the greater "good" of avoiding an EU breakup, and keeping us paying into the EU's coffers.
You are not the first to underestimate the sheer ruthless animus that powers the EU, and thus the counter-intuitive consequences. I hope you, rather than I, are right; but I fear you are not.
What exactly do you disagree with in what I say about the EU, Budgie?
ReplyDelete"I have some problems with Open Europe, not least the fact that they keep trying to explain how wonderful the EU would be if we could just reform it or change our status in it with nary an idea as to how this astonishing development could be achieved." - my italics.
ReplyDeleteIf the EU politicians really want to keep the UK in the EU, they could ignore their own rules and procedures, as they did to save the euro. In that scenario the UK would be offered real reform without a new EU wide treaty, despite other eurosceptics saying this could not happen. The offer would be just balanced to obtain a UK referendum yes vote. Given the behaviour of the eurocrats this is neither an impossible nor an astonishing outcome.
But why would they do that? They have shown no sign of doing anything of the kind so far. If you believe that the EU can be reformed in a way that opposes its intentions then I have a bridge you might like to buy.
DeleteI have not said that I "believe that the EU can be reformed in a way that opposes its intentions". I said that the eurocrats may (for their own purposes) want to keep the UK in the EU and thus may (they have form) ignore their own rules and procedures to do so.
ReplyDeleteAt this stage I do not think either the EU or Cameron could get away with merely Wilsonian window dressing for a UK referendum (if one ever comes to pass). Therefore it is possible that we could get some real reform for the UK, but only if the EU oligarchy thinks this is the least worst outcome for them.
Moreover, we do not even agree on what the EU's "intentions" are. The EU's rules (or laws) are not sacrosanct. The EU oligarchs think rules are for little people; the only rule they have is to get and keep power.
At this stage I do not think either the EU or Cameron could get away with merely Wilsonian window dressing for a UK referendum (if one ever comes to pass).
DeleteThis is where we part company. I think they can and will, not least because a real reform would be impossible under the existing structure and there is no particular indication that the structure is going to be changed. Nor do we have a majority for the out side even in the existing circumstances.