Comments on: Euro elections

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:51:04 +0000

Hot news from elsewhere is that Paul van Buitenen seems to have been elected to the European Parliament. If so, that is welcome news. Illuminating recent background report in the UK press here with the headline: Euro-MPs keep their snouts in the trough: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=528532004

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:48:17 +0000

The extent of Euroscepticism in Britain, as reflected in many polls, far exceeds the extent of any support for what is tagged as “right-wing Conservatism”. In the regular, official Eurobarometer surveys, those polled in Britain almost invariably rank near or at the bottom in support for the EU, a belief in the integrity of its institutions or any conviction that participation in it is beneficial. If Euroscepticism were congruent with right-wing Conservatism, we would not have Blairite, NuLab governments. Instead of tagging Eurosceptics as just a bunch of nationalisitic and xenophobic, right-wing Conservatives, as Blairites are inclined to, it would likely prove more illuminating and generally instructive to unravel why the British are more Eurosceptical than most other Europeans. It seems highly unlikely that there is some simple explanation, very probably because there are several distinct, and quite possibly mutually inconsistent, threads within each of the bodies of Eurosceptical and Euro-federalist sentiment. There is absolutely no logically compelling reason why my Euroscepticism needs have the same rationale as that of UKIP supporters, to take an admittedly extreme example. In all this, there are two inconvenient but well-documented factors, both of which are apt to get fudged out in ascendant political mythologies. The first is that the Conservatives in Britain were, in fact, mainly responsible for not only engaging Britain more closely in European affairs but also for promoting the Single Market concept. The second is that the self-styled “left” in Britain has, with a few exceptions belonging to the paleo-left, switched from being the main source of opposition to Britain’s participation in European affairs to becoming the most enthusiastic and vocal proponents of ever closer European integration. As part of a timely exercise in illumination, it would be prudent to probe as to why this shift has occurred. I suspect at least part of it is that the “left” came to recognise that European integration has the most promising propect for achieving its ambitions for big, joined-up government, statism and market regulation, arguably the very reasons why the overall performance of the Eurozone economy is flagging.

By: Daniel Elstein

Daniel Elstein — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:47:13 +0000

If you’re choosing between Labour and the Lib Dems, isn’t it worth considering how the European Parliament actually works? In practice, Labour MEPs are members of the Socialist group, and tend to vote in line with the Socialists rather than taking order from Blair. So I’m much happier in voting for Labour MEPs than I would be in voting for Labour MPs, and I don’t think that European elections should be used to make the anti-war vote – we’ll have other chances to do that.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:24:15 +0000

I think it’s a mistake to be thinking about the Labour Party leadership when you’re voting in local and European elections. You’d be better off looking at the local situation and what the party is doing locally. In my ward I had the choice of 3 Tories, 3 Liberal Democrats, 3 Labour candidates and one from the BNP. I voted on their local record.

By: Sam Dodsworth

Sam Dodsworth — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:05:19 +0000

We’ve got an existing Green MEP here in London – perhaps the ‘fringe’ parties are more significant than the old guard would like to imply?

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:19:23 +0000

I lived in Britain in the middle 1980s, so much of this discussion has a strangely familiar wing. Labour’s left wing doing its grim and determined best to scupper Labour’s chances of winning the next General Election… hey, haven’t we been here before? The idealization of Gordon Brown as the left’s Prince Across the Water is also pretty amusing. From here, it looks like three parts wishful thinking, one part “we’ve all repeated this so long to ourselves that now we have to believe it”. Everyone remembers Tony Blair talking about what an “inspirational moment” it was when Kinnock finally turned on Militant. What they forget is that Brown shared fully in that inspiration. Brown loathed folks like Blair’s ex-roommate, Dave Nellist, just as much as Blair did. (Maybe more; Brown is built for long-term loathing in a way that Blair isn’t.) The closest American equivalent might be the fondness of many American liberals for John McCain, which has given rise to the utterly daft idea that this lifelong Republican might agree to run for vice-president under Kerry. But that’s a madness of the moment. The British left has been making googly eyes at Gordon Brown for years now. Ah well. Bring on the popcorn, say I. Doug M.

By: q

Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:07:24 +0000

Imperial Labour, Loony Liberals or Crony Conservatives? What a choice. Vote to upset the old order, and choose a fringe party.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:59:44 +0000

Re: hp’s comments… That was rather amusing. Yes, having looked at the Europe issue from here in the U.S., I find the whole thing sort of funny. After all, y’all are having a lot of the same problems we were having in the 1780s (minus slavery, of course), and the solution we came up with seems to work just fine. One thing that scares me a little about the European Constitution is how much policy is embedded in the document. One of the nice things about the U.S. Constitution is that it’s a very lightweight document, so it leaves a lot of flexibility to the States and to Congress to figure out whatever laws they need at the moment (rather than having to go through the process of amending the Constitution). And… something I don’t understand at all is why, when you already have a deliberative body that’s one-state-one-vote (kind of like our Senate), you also give small countries increased representation in the Parliament. It seems like the medium-sized countries get screwed by that kind of thing. But maybe I don’t understand the difference between the two bodies – if the actual legislative branch of government is only going to consist of the Parliament, then I guess it’s a good compromise.

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:52:10 +0000

Suppost that the Lib dems get 25% of the vote – is that going to put any pressure on Blair? I dont think so – the only party thats likely to form the next government if the Conservatives so only a good result for them puts any pressure on blair. A good result for the LDs only is good news for Balir since it tells hime he’s unlikely to loose the next election – most LD voters at a general election – given the choice between A tory government elected because of high support for the LDs and a labor government with only a small LD representation in parliament would choose to vote labor.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:52:21 +0000

Gordon Brown, according to the Gruaniad, is even more pro-American than Bliar. Brown met with Rupert Murdoch three weeks ago, apparently to test the water as to how News International’s various organs would respond to an elegant succession. With friends like these… Sorry to sound harsh but anyone who has been awake and watching the news these last twelve months and who (like me) teaches elementary pol phil should be voting Respect tomorrow.

By: HP

HP — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:34:39 +0000

Speaking as a citizen of a strongly federalized union of otherwise independent states, I have to say that federalism really isn’t so bad, especially if the alternative is nationalism, which has never done anyone any good. (IMO, the biggest problem with federalism is that, after a federal union has been established for a few generations, its citizens begin to think of themselves as a “nation,” and that’s where the trouble starts.) Just make sure that you work out as many issues as possible well in advance, and don’t settle for any half-assed “compromises,” particularly if there are moral issues involved. Elsewise, you should be in good shape. You go, European Federalism!

By: djw

djw — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:31:22 +0000

Sounds like you’ve got a pretty good plan to me, Chris. Putting the squeeze on Blair is a good thing.

By: jamie

jamie — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:09:03 +0000

“Had Britain followed the advice of the European federalists, we would have signed up to the Euro by now. Fortunately, we didn’t – the Eurozone has higher rates of both unemployment and inflation than Britain, as well as slower GDP growth.” People in favour of the Euro aren’t necessarily federalists, unless you put people like Leon Brittan or John Major in that camp. remmeber that we were on track for the Euro under the Major government in line with the agreements signed up to under Thatcher until George Soros delivered us. Federalism is a specific set of political arrangements, not an ad hoc aggregation of powers. In fact, the Euro ties in with my original point. The politicians who supported it did so, IMO, on the grounds that a) it would deliver the kind of stable economic environment which makes it easy to get re-elected and b) if it didn’t, they could just blame Europe.

By: harry

harry — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:26:44 +0000

Don’t vote Labour, Chris. LD is the only way to go…

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:51:36 +0000

“The main problem as I see it with Europe is that it makes the governments of the member states more powerful . . ” What sticks in the throat of many in Britain is the centralising and harmonising zealotry of some European federalists. It would be entirely incorrect to believe Blair when he suggests that only “extremists” are opposing the EU Constitution. Many with entirely “moderate” political inclinations are concerned at the way the EU COnstitution is heading, including Derek Scott, Blair’s economic adviser until recently, and Sam Brittan, whose brother was a European Commissioner 1989-99, wrote recently in the Financial Times: “Mr Blair must not be allowed to get away with saying that opponents of the treaty are opponents of the EU as such. . . A No vote will not destroy the EU but be a signal that over-centralisation has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.” – from: http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/text183_p.html Had Britain followed the advice of the European federalists, we would have signed up to the Euro by now. Fortunately, we didn’t – the Eurozone has higher rates of both unemployment and inflation than Britain, as well as slower GDP growth.