Decision Time: Europe

Blog

January 17th, 2012

I have recorded tomorrow night’s Decision Time for Radio 4 – this time about Europe and Britain’s place in it. You can judge for yourself the balance of the arguments. Nick Robinson, who presents the programme, says it is meant to be the level of conflict of a dinner conversation not a despatch box confrontation. There were a few head-in-hands moments, and I did say one of the participants reminded me of the Trotskyist arguments in the Labour Party, but knives were not thrown.

One taster is worthwhile highlighting. John (Lord) Kerr who became Head of the FCO in the 1990s and worked for John Major at Maastricht as the UK’s EU Ambassador in Brussels talked us through the contrast between the achievement of the Euro opt-out under the Major government and the car crash in December under the Cameron government. John Major got his opt out by strenuous alliance building with Helmut Kohl; by setting out in the UK that he supported the further development of the EU; by using his Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd to front up a wide ranging series of engagements that set up the British position; and so on. Major also got an opt out on the Social Chapter which thankfully was reversed by the Blair Government. But as a piece of diplomacy it was serious work – not quite game, set and match but a proper operation. The contrast with the last minute political hackery of the phantom veto was clear.

See what you think tomorrow.

Pete Flynn

I am not myself concerned with hearing politicians debating Europe.
We all know what they are going to say before they say it and wise words take the form of“ …….The root of the present chaos can be traced back to bad politics taking precedence over sensible economics……. “

Well John hindsight is a great thing but you cannot blame politicians for doing political things and hoping that something academic will not get in the way.

When a journalist asked Ben Bernanke ,of the Federal Reserve, why he acted in accordance with the faith of free market ,he quoted Adam’s Smith’s invisible hand.
However, it wasn’t a self regulating market, that reflated the dwindling US economy in 2004 . It was the very visible hand of the Fed grabbing trillions in Yen which came from digital hyper space.
This was not free market economics ,it was the tinkering of political expedience, in the pursuit of stabilizing the present moment .

If this means that Greece most borrow to maintain social
parity with other nations then that is what politicians will endeavor to do in their brief window of opportunity.
What the consequences are for the future is less of a political imperative.

In what sense do trading nations bond under a single currency
when their commercial attributes vastly differ?
Trading nations are like trading companies and each has limiting characteristics which define its niche and practical reach.
None of this is reconciled by the mobility of a work force.
The concept of the singular currency denies the intransient nature of heterogeneous nations.

But political self interest will press on with holding this utopian project together ,for some time to come ,with all its machinations
and all of it will still be founded on the hubris of the liberal free market.

Pete Flynn
South Shields
17 January 2012
Pete Flynn

David after being tempted to listen to this debate I found it
intellectually coherent but, in terms of the argument, some of it was frustratingly
inconclusive.
The arguments were lucid enough but they were no backed by much substance.

This was largely due to the fact that the rationales underpinning the arguments
were speculative and theoretical.
Andrea Leadsom ,for example, put forward the idea that liberation from Euro
constraints would allow for the tapping of the ”massive potential” of the BRICS.
This is simply Quixotic thinking.
You did have to remind Ms Leadsom that the FTT did not
transpire in the Treaty.

Lord Kerr nailed the broader reality of these “opportunities” by dispensing the wisdom
that economics is inseperable from politics.
Anyone who has worked in commerce understands that business is a figment of
interpersonal liaisons .

I myself believe that equilibrium among such national economic diversity is
highly questionable and Derek Scott is absolutely spot on in believing that
in its present form it is a sham.

However, you are right in stating that you must engage in your locality.
Whatever happens to Europe, there will remain an European phenomenon,
in some form .
You simply must be the heart of such a monolith.

Let us not forget that 50% of UK business is located in Europe.
Can we imagine any private enterprise whose sales, to one firm,
are represented as 50%, wanting to distance themselves from that firm?
Andrea Leadsom states that withdrawing in such a manner will notcompromise the trading relationships, but we should be aware that
trading relationships are, in manyways, subjective arrangements.
If you are trading with people, you want to be close to them , to show
affinity, as Lord Kerr pointed out .What Andrea Leadsom is advocating is, in fact, a cold shoulder to Europe.
That is not the way to conduct business.

If she believes that there are” massive opportunities” with the BRICS, ,that are not possible in the European entanglement ,then she must prove her
case beyond reasonable doubt. She has in no way done so.

Now I must give you credit for your quip about dinner party etiquette.
Dry wit at its best

Pete FlynnSouth Shields
22 January 2012
Jaques_Schitt

I will try to keep this as short as possible. I will say from the outset that I am not a great fan of what the officialdom of the EU stand for, the unelected hierarchy and the billions that have to be pumped into it to keep the organisation afloat. (not to mention the ailing Euro) But there are some unsettling things which need to brought out into the open.

What I am concerned about immediately is something I heard on radio 4 news today, namely a speech by one mr. D. Cameron stating that not only did he want to claw back powers from the EU but that he also wants to SCRAP the human rights act almost completely, only using the act “In the most extreme cases” It is obvious that Mr. Cameron would put himself up so high on a pedestal that HE alone would judge who, in his opinion was human enough to qualify for ‘human rights’. He then went on to say that he would like to replace it with a ‘British Bill of Rights’.

Mr Cameron, quite like a lot of other politicians manipulate the media very well, in fact I would go as far as to say that old Josef Goebbels himself would be proud of this last stunt! He has managed to convince a good percentage of the population that this is the very best thing to do as at the moment the European Court will not allow us to re-patriate known terrorists as they could be taken ‘seriously ill’ if shipped back to their original homeland. Tut – tut! They print many cases in the press about illegal immigrants killing and raping people in this country, but Europe forbids us from sending them back home because it denies them a human right to a family life. Then we shoudn’t forget that those nasty Euro judges have told us that we have to give those ‘untermensch’ prisoners that are banged up in British gaols a say in who runs the country! What blazing cheek! The fact that quite a lot of the prison population would never ever vote Tory is a point that has been carefully swept under the mat and covered up.

Because of this ‘media brainwashing’ there is now a good percentage of the population who would willingly sign away the only thing that protects even THEIR own rights. As a friend recently told me, the single thing which stops the likes of Mr Cameron and his priviledged Eton goons running roughshod over the rights of ordinary people is the European Court of Human Rights. Yet, so many are willing to give up their only protection after reading those horrific stories of abuse of the human rights act in the media. After all, as my friend reminded me – They don’t want EUROPE giving ordinary people the right to sue their own government, in effect giving the little man a voice that the big chaps have to listen to. And they certainly do not want Europe admonishing the British government for trying to pull a fast one here and there. And as for the benefits system, it would not be ‘reformed’, it would be destroyed. “We don’t want to encourage any of those workshy cripples to sit around in their wheelchairs all day – make them crawl on the floor and get a job licking the streets clean” With no one in the Court of Human Rights able to stop him, this will become reality. Big business has no use for the disabled.

Oh, and if anybody has the slightest idea what the Conservatives would write into this ‘British Bill of Rights’ I would be grateful for any hints although I do feel though that ordinary joe public would not benefit from any such bill as it would be written entirely for the benefit of the ‘rich’ British.

David MilibandMember of Parliament for South Shields

Blog

Tags