Europe - Britain at the Crossroads

EUROPE - BRITAIN AT THE CROSSROADS

This was originally written as a discussion piece while I was studying EU law during my Open University studies

The UK has always had a love-hate relationship with Europe and the European Union (EU). This discussion piece will look at the history of the UK’s entry and membership of the EU, the relationships between the UK and the constituent countries of the EU including the differences and similarities with other countries in Europe and the nature of the EU itself. It will also examine the advantages and disadvantages of the EU becoming in effect the United States of Europe and consider whether this is an inevitable outcome of the process of closer European integration. Finally it will consider the effect Europe is likely to have on domestic politics.

The EU started as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) with the aim of French and German steel and coal being controlled by a single body and although Winston Churchill, who was the Prime Minister of the UK at the time, supported the creation of the ECSC, the Conservative government at the time declined to be a founding member of the community, preferring the existing links to the Commonwealth countries and the United States of America. The ECSC then led to the formation of the Common Market and the  signing of the Treaty of Rome which was, in effect, creating the basis of a constitution for any future European single political union alongside the European Commission to act as the means of enacting the necessary European legislation and the European Court of Justice. At this point there was no democratically elected European legislature. After the initial reluctance to join the Common Market, the UK did apply to accede, but was refused entry on more than one occasion, largely due to France exercising the veto of a country joining the Community which is provided for in Article 49 of the Treaty of Rome. It was felt at the time that the UK would not be fully committed to the closer integration of European countries. The events of the last 40 years have proved these reservations about the UK’s commitment to be fully justified as the UK has been, at best, semi-detached where Europe is concerned.

The UK did, however, accede to the Common Market following the passing of the European Communities Act in 1972. It could be argued that this Act had the effect of binding future Parliaments and it has been argued that it conceded sovereignty of the UK as EU law took preference over the UK law on matters which the Common Market and its successors have jurisdiction on. The UK became a full member on January 1^st 1973.

The issue of whether the UK should remain a member was then the subject of a referendum in 1975 which decisively supported the UK continuing with membership of the Common Market. This is, however, the only chance the UK electorate have had to vote on Europe as all treaties and legislation have since been ratified by Parliament rather than a popular vote, as has occurred in many EU countries.

One of the most important aspects of the UK’s relationship to Europe which needs to be considered is the differences and similarities with other member states. Whilst all of the other member states, apart from the Republic of Ireland, have a civil law tradition which is based on Roman law and uses civil codes with judges interpreting the spirit of these (the purposive approach), the UK has developed the Common Law tradition with judges making laws, although in recent history legislation has become more prevalent.

Another historical aspect which needs to be considered is religious differences. The UK had the Reformation under Henry VIII and is predominantly a protestant country, whereas most of the rest of Europe looks to Rome and the Catholic tradition for religious teachings. Alongside this is the fact that the UK has fought wars with most European countries over several centuries and it is only in the last 70 years there has been real peace in Europe (with the notable exception of the Balkans following the breakup of Yugoslavia). There remains within the populace of the UK a deep-seated distrust of Europeans much of which is based on these wars and the fact that at various times the UK has been threatened with invasion by France and Germany.

Another difference between the UK and our “partners” in the EU is the fact that the UK is a post-industrial economy with a mainly service-based economy, whereas the southern European states are predominantly agricultural and France and Germany are a mix of heavy industry and agriculture. It is possible to argue that on this basis alone to join the Common Market was sheer folly but it needs to be remembered that at the time the UK joined the Common Market there was still a large industrial sector within the UK.

Whilst there are significant differences between the UK and the southern European states and the Franco/German alliance, it is possible to argue that the UK has a lot in common with the Nordic countries of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. It should be noted that all of these countries have remained outside of the Eurozone since the launch of the Euro in 2002, with Norway remaining outside the EU, although Norway is a member of the European Free Trade Area. The ties with these nations are not just in outlook but economically with fishing and oil, and of course the shared history courtesy of the Viking invasions of pre-Norman conquest England and Scotland. We also have the ties with Ireland courtesy of the historic occupation of Ireland.

The nature of the EU itself is a logical progression from industrial union through economic union (Common Market) to monetary and fiscal union. The next logical step is political union and it is possible to argue that monetary and fiscal union cannot work without political union. It is also possible to argue that the diversity of the various constituent countries would lead to the failure of any political union as the culture and economies could not realistically converge as one. An example of this is the ongoing issues with Greece and Cyprus, with the necessity of continuing financial bailouts and the distinct possibility that Greece will be the first country within the EU to leave the Union according to Article 50 of the consolidated Treaties of Rome and Lisbon. However, it is also possible to argue that closer integration leads to more trade and greater freedom for Europe’s citizens although freedom is, of course, subjective with some citizens being freer than others. A major benefit of the EU is the extra protection it has given employees with rules regarding discrimination and important health and safety rules being implemented.

It is important to note that if political union should come about many of the necessary ingredients for this union are already in place such as a federal (European) court, a federal legislature and of course the monetary union. There are, however, obstacles other than economic ones to be overcome before political union can be accomplished.

One major issue to consider is the fact that of the 27 constituent countries there are currently 7 constitutional monarchies (including the UK) and 20 republics. Effective political union requires a single Head of State. It is difficult to see any of the monarchies agreeing to a European President being the Executive instead of their reigning monarch and the French and Irish would certainly not consider allowing a monarch to rule over them following their struggles to be republics in the not-too-distant past. Then there is the issue of would the countries occupied by the Nazis during World War 2 countenance the idea of a German President if that should happen? History divides Europe more than it unites Europe.   

Then there is the issue of social policy. There are wide differences in approaches to social issues within Europe with some countries being more socially liberal than others. An example of this is the liberal attitude to recreational drugs of Spain and the Netherlands compared to the “war on drugs” attitude of the UK and various other EU countries and the influence of religion on social policies can still be felt in some countries, such as Italy and Ireland although religious influence is waning in the latter following various scandals. Could a single political entity with a single constitution based on the European Convention on Human Rights allow for a ban on divorce and abortion? These kind of issues need to be considered when creating a single unified state.

It should also be borne in mind that there are realistically 4 Europes not one. The Nordic states plus the UK is one grouping, the southern states of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus and Malta is another, then there are the Benelux countries, France and Germany and finally the Eastern European states. Are these groupings able to be one grouping? The evidence so far is that they are too disparate for union economically, politically and socially. It has been said before that those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, and history has plenty of examples of artificial political unions which have ended with economic chaos, political chaos and even bloodshed – including the recent examples of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and even Belgium, which was without a government for a substantial period recently due to problems between the Flemish and Walloon populations.

Having considered the issue of political union it is necessary to consider the impact the EU and the progression towards political union has on domestic politics within the UK. There has been a strong Euro-sceptic tradition in UK politics on both the left and right, although the social benefits of the EU has led to the left being generally in favour of the EU in recent years. The Conservative Party attitude towards Europe has swung from them being the party which took the UK into Europe and signed the Single European Act 1986 and the Maastricht Treaty to the party of what one of the current Prime Minister David Cameron’s aides calls “Swivel-eyed loons” with a substantial number of their MPs supporting a total withdrawal from the EU. Labour was for several years committed to withdrawal but is now officially in favour of staying within the EU. The Lib Democrats in various guises (let’s not forget that Europe was the reason the Social Democrats left the Labour Party) have always been pro-EU. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is a recent creation and could be described as the halfway house between the Conservatives and the fascists of the British National Party and has at various times been called “The BNP in blazers”.

So, having looked at the history of the various domestic parties, it is necessary to consider the future of domestic politics with reference to Europe and another important factor to consider is the issue of Scottish independence with the referendum on independence being held in 2014. The current electoral system makes it very hard for UKIP to gain parliamentary seats but they have been polling consistently high recently at the same time as the Lib-Dems have been on the wane. Although they may not make significant gains in seats a strong showing in the 2015 election for UKIP could take enough votes from the Conservatives to lose the Conservatives several marginal seats which would lead to a Labour majority and there being a pro-EU government instead of the current mixed signals of the coalition with the current Government’s EU policy being the political equivalent of the Pushmi-Pullyu within Dr Dolittle.

On a longer-term basis, if Scotland secedes from the UK there would be several Labour seats out of the Parliamentary equation. This could lead to a more Euro-sceptic government on a long-term basis and if UKIP makes gains over the long-term the prospect of a Conservative/UKIP coalition which could withdraw from the ECHR and European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights and there is no prospect of any government of any shade joining the Euro in the short or medium term and the long-term viability of the Euro itself remains to be determined.

With the English mainstream parties (Conservative/Labour/Lib-Dem) all seeming to be virtually identical on many issues (especially economically), it is worth considering whether the traditional class-based politics of the UK will be replaced with alliances on the basis of pro and anti-European groupings. The pro-Europe section of the Labour Party and the Lib-Dems seem natural allies as do UKIP and the Eurosceptic faction within the Conservatives. It is thus possible to argue that the basis for the new alliances are already in place although whether they become distinct parties or merely marriages of convenience remains to be determined.

One thing is clear though, and that is that the UK needs to decide whether it should be a part of Europe and, if so, which Europe it wishes to be part of. Should the UK be like Norway and be bound by the regulations of the EU without having a say in how the policies are decided or should the UK be a part of closer integration and have a say in issues and have social and economic benefits? Or should the UK work with Denmark and Sweden to establish a halfway house with a two-track Europe? The only way to end the domestic uncertainty is to have a referendum to determine once more whether the UK should remain in the EU and it should be borne in mind that the EU in its current state is vastly different to the Common Market which was voted on in 1975. However, before the referendum can take place it is important that the true facts on both sides are laid before the electorate and at the moment it is possible to argue that only the sceptic voice is being heard with the media largely being hostile to the EU.

In conclusion, although the UK has been a part of the EU for 40 years now it has not been a happy relationship and there are significant differences between the various parts of Europe itself which are based legal, historical and social differences. There are benefits to closer integration but there are also significant problems to be overcome before the logical progression from industrial union to political union within Europe can be completed, especially regarding the issue of the Head of State for any future political union. The success of the economic union is in significant doubt and domestic politics is becoming increasingly a case of differences in stance over Europe rather then the traditional political differences. It is clear that the uncertainty needs to be ended by a referendum to determine whether the UK should remain a part of Europe and, if it does remain in the EU, what kind of EU it wishes to be a part of.

Time Flies!

Wow! It's been over a year since I last posted anything to this blog.

A lot's happened in that time but the world still turns and the environment is still being shit on from a great height.

I'm still studying with the Open University and doing fairly well.

Meanwhile here's a bit of music to be going on with:

Where are your words?

This video was shown at the PCS Union LGBT Seminar 2012 in Birmingham over the weekend. It is extremely moving and shocking.

The simple fact is that there is no excuse whatsoever for hatred, bigotry and violence.

Homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are not acceptable under ANY circumstances.

Please feel free to share this video and use it to educate people that we are not punchbags.

Why Miliband Deserved to be Booed

On Saturday 20th October I was just one of over 150,000 people who had gathered in London to march against the austerity agenda being pushed through by the ruling classes. The march took place just a day after Andrew Mitchell was forced to resign for calling the policeman guarding Thatcher's gates at the end of Downing Street a "pleb".

The march was the "Plebs on Parade". We sent a message to the Tory Party and the Lib-Dems that we would not accept cuts in services and benefits at the same time as tax cuts for the rich. 

The march was organised by the TUC and in his speech to the rally at Hyde Park, the general secretary of the public sector union PCS, Mark Serwotka, spoke passionately about how the taxes which have gone uncollected are sufficient to eradicate the need for cuts.

Unfortunately the TUC had also invited the Labour Party leader Ed Miliband to speak. In his speech Miliband spoke about how he would impose cuts if he was elected Prime Minister in the next election. The inevitable outcome was that those who were present greeted Miliband with a chorus of boos. I was just arriving at the rally when he finished speaking, but if I had arrived earlier my voice would have joined the chorus.

Miliband may be the leader of the Labour Party, but his party cares not one iota for the working classes that Labour are supposed to represent. He has supported the con trick that the poorest in society should pay the gambling debts of the bankers. The old saying goes that actions speak louder than words. Miliband pays lip service to being leader of the Labour Party, which was founded by the trades union movement, but acts like a Tory.

I have always believed that the Tories and their fellow travellers are worthy of nothing but contempt. When a so-called Labour leader joins the Tory Party in their agenda of penalising the poor then I will criticise that Labour Party leader.

Labour in government didn't exactly have a stellar record and, frankly, deserved to be defeated at the last election. Their record was that of being Tory-lite. It was the Labour government which introduced tuition fees for university courses. It was the Labour government which started the process towards stealing the pensions of public sector workers. It was the Labour government which introduced work assessments for disabled people. It was the Labour government which subsidised bankers while cutting benefits for the poorest in society. These aren't the actions of a party which bears the name Labour - meaning they are the party of the workers and poor. These are the action of a party for the rich. 

Labour do not deserve the support of the working classes and the Trades Union movement. Unions established Labour and unions should withdraw funding from Labour and start a new party to represent the workers and those who are unable to work because of disability. Miliband and his party are selling us out big time. They deserve our full contempt.

Gary Moore - Whiskey In The Jar Live in Dublin

Time to choose my next OU course

My examinable essay in my final entry level OU course has now been submitted and the time has come to select my next course.

I am looking at studying a Level 2 course in Law. Luckily I am able to receive financial assistance and get the course paid for me as I was a registered student when the fee structure changed to allow fees of up to £9,000 per year so I qualify for transitional funding arrangements.

So, I have a few months before starting the next course but I'm expecting it to be somewhat more difficult and this time there is an exam at the end of it. I am, however, looking forward to the new course.

Education - Back To The Future

With the latest education reform being the overhaul of the examination system, it is timely to assess where we are heading with education in the UK.

The Tories have decided upon a rewind policy - out of the digital age and back to the future. They are determined to re-invent the old O-Level which was based on examination only with no consideration of the coursework over the previous two years. They won't call it the O-Level, or to give it the correct title General Certificate of Education (GCE). However, a cow pat smells just as bad by any other name.

The O-Level had one major disadvantage - some people are excellent academically, however they freeze at examination time. So, with this exam all their work over the previous two years is wasted and they are marked down as a failure, regardless of how good a student of that subject they are. This examination rewards crammers and those who are not academically-minded will be thrown on the scrap-heap.

Prior to the GCSE being introduced, which took into account course work as well as examinations, there used to be another qualification the CSE - Certificate of Secondary Education, which was for those deemed not so bright.

So, are we going to see the second-level of qualification introduced as well as going back to the O-Level? The Tories are remaining silent on that issue.

Then there is the subject of selection of pupils. Some areas (Tory-dominated) still have the old grammar school and secondary school system. This involves pupils taking the 11-plus exam which brands children as failures if they are not selected for the grammar school and find themselves in the Secondary Modern schools which come with this system. Secondary is the word. They give a second-class education to the pupils.

However, there is one aspect of this system which is the elephant in the room - selection by social standing. When the grammar school system was in its prime the selection basis was as much social selection as academic. If two children had passed the 11-plus and there was only one place available at the grammar school, then the child from the higher social class inevitably receives the place at the grammar school and the child from the lower social class is thrown into the bottomless pit of the secondary modern where the child is left to rot.

The inequality of the grammar school system was increased by the funding arrangements. Substantially more money is spent on a grammar school pupil than a secondary modern pupil. I witnessed this with my own eyes when in school. I was in the last year of selection in East Sussex. I ended up in the secondary modern. The following year comprehensive education was introduced there. So, we had the situation where the year below me had significantly more resources for each pupil than was the case in my year. Why? Because the grammar school was skimming off the cream of the finance to educate the elite.

Nowadays we are back to social selection, but through the back door. In recent years it has been social selection by the better schools increasing property values within their catchment areas. This means that poorer families are priced out of their children attending these schools. They have called them comprehensive schools, but how can they be comprehensive when their catchment area only includes the posher areas of town?

Then there is the movement to "Academy" schools. This too is going to lead to selection by the back door. They too will select the pupils they want, leaving the remainder to go to the local sink schools.

After the children have left school and progressed through the sixth-form or local further education colleges it comes to the point of thinking about higher education.

This government has trebled the fees for university education. This will again exclude the children of poorer families. University education used to be only for the rich. It is heading that way again. The government dress it up with promises that the fees will only be paid when a student earns over £21,000 a year etc, etc, etc. It will still put off many off-spring of poorer families. It is my contention that the Tory scum desire this - keeping the riff-raff out of higher education. In other words, knowing our place - as servants and workers not aiming for professional positions.

This government is all about class. The majority of them are public-school educated and millionaires. They don't give a fuck about ordinary people. As Andrew Mitchell, the Chief Whip, said to the policeman who told him to use the side gate in Downing Street rather than the main gate - we should know our place.

So, here is the future for the 99% of us - doffing our caps to the toffs and a lifetime of servitude without a good education for our children.

After all, an educated working class is a threat to their class.