As the UK’s participation in the EU comes under the spotlight once again, two Exeposé Online writers debate what should be done.
“Britain should take the initiative to seriously strive for a new deal.”
There’s always that guy at the party, standing apart from the rest and not really talking to anybody. The EU club – like any other – has its very own awkward member. The British contingent is becoming increasingly fed up with the invitation and the majority want to head straight for the door. It had reached that point in the night when a toast was in order: instead of politely raising his glass in tribute David Cameron spoke with frankness about the fundamental differences between us and them and the severe flaws in the current system; ultimately he asserted we should keep our membership, albeit on drastically renegotiated terms.
Europe is rarely referred to in the first person on our isolated and proud island. Past glories of conquer and empire have left a self-inflated sense of grandeur, coupled with a bizarrely snobbish attitude towards our Continental cousins. Over the last century freedom and liberty have been championed as Anglo-American concepts driving the world forward. Europe in that time, however, has been purged with draconian dictatorships pursuing Communist and Fascist extremism. Two World Wars and one Cold War later democracy did eventually win out. Not without a chilling level of sacrifice and bloodshed though. It’s hard to genuinely understand the mind-set of older generations gravely affected by such events. I suspect many have a deeply rooted fear of German-led European tyranny transforming our stable democracy into something more resemblant of the Galactic Empire. For most students, however, Europe provides boundless potential as the place next door for gallivanting in search of adventure and relaxation. It certainly sounds all very jolly to be part of one large happy family looking out for the interests of everyone else. Yet, as Cameron consistently pointed out, the EU has strayed far from the original principles it was founded on.
Political issues always have impressive habits of coaxing strongly-held opinions from people – usually based far more on emotion and anecdotal evidence rather than stone cold facts and rational thought. We have enough apathy towards domestic politics, let alone the continental version. How much do you really know about the European Union? – Who runs it and how are those in power appointed and held accountable? How much money do we really put in and what do we get out? The name of the President would be a start.
Cameron admitted that political union was never what Britain wanted: free borders on immigration leave the UK powerless to put forward its own proposals on the matter regardless of the widespread discontent. The European Court of Human Rights meanwhile dictates to us which of our own terrorists we can deport and is currently considering whether to force all members to give certain prisoners the vote. Italy and Greece have already had their elected leaders removed and replaced by technocrats and the latest idea being toyed about in Brussels is a proposal to regulate and censor the press in every member state. How democratic does that sound to you?
Increasingly petty EU laws crippling small business and development contradicts the free trade agreement it’s based on. At the heart of the conundrum inevitably lies London; that cosmopolitan giant of global finance and capital so at odds with the left-leaning EU. The City enjoys the unique luxury of being the only one of its ilk inside the single market – a key reason why so many companies invest there. The EU’s obsessive pursuit of financial taxation and regulation would have a disproportionately damaging effect on our London-centric economy.
For many Europe evokes powerful feelings of old-world beauty, blazing sunshine, cheap booze and sexual liberation. It’s a continent bursting with culture and exoticism in every corner. However, emotional sentiment mustn’t mask the grim reality: the EU at present has become bloated and conceited – too caught up in its previous successes and too stubborn to admit its current failings. Cameron promised an In-Out referendum in the hope that the growing reservations of our citizens are taken seriously. His speech accurately underlined the problem, while simultaneously showcasing his admiration of the objectives the EU was founded on.
The prevention of World War III should never be underestimated. An institution stretching across an entire continent, producing almost a quarter of global GDP and populated by over 500 million has staggering potential. If Britain really is – as those zealous patriots like to claim – a true world leader, backing out when the going gets tough is a weak and cowardly move. With rising anger in other nations Britain should take the initiative to seriously strive for a new deal and project greater influence within the EU. It will be a daunting challenge but one worth taking on.
Britain isn’t a special member, though it is characteristically at least quite different. Nobody is demanding free cocktails all night; however a couple more beers and a compromised playlist more in tune to our tastes would be nice in exchange for that hefty membership fee we annually pay. We don’t expect to agree on everything but a good host should be as accommodating as possible to even the most awkward of guests.
“A referendum will hurt the UK’s already strained relationship with other European powers.”
Last month, after much delay and anticipation, Prime Minister David Cameron outlined his plans for a referendum on UK membership of the European Union. Mr Cameron’s plans to hold a referendum and reasoning were somewhat overshadowed by his statement this would only occur if he was re-elected, making it quite clear this referendum is a tactless campaign ploy. The Conservative party in a recent poll trailed Labour by 11 points and in the same poll 51 per cent of voters stated they would prefer Boris Johnson as Prime Minister against 30 per cent for David Cameron. So what do you do when polls are against you? You campaign, and it seems Mr Cameron has started quite early.
His reasoning that in this economic climate Europe is far too weak for such a referendum is correct, but his suggestion that Europe will be much more stable in 2016 seems far stretched and a little too optimistic. The official announcement of such a referendum will also most likely hurt the United Kingdom’s already strained relationship with other European powers. The fact is it does not look good at this time of extreme economic fragility in Europe for Britain to even publicly contemplate adopting a more isolationist policy against the countries we trade with and profit from.
Political opinion is also not favourable across the pond with Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney stating their belief that Britain was “stronger as a result of its European membership”. It is a shame Mr Cameron has not taken stock of this statement and realised how little interest the rest of the world would have in a small island with comparatively few resources of its own. Membership of the European Union grants us far more global influence, which is pivotal for a country that relies so substantially on trade.
Mr Cameron’s speech also seemed to yet again demonstrate his failure to understand the concept of compromise and the obvious benefits of the EU. His demands for a more influential voice for Britain, as well as more independence from the EU, will most likely fall on deaf ears as the two demands completely contradict each other. No country should expect more influence with less responsibility, which essentially is what he is asking for. Demands are also less likely to be met if other EU members consider the fact Britain may not be a member for much longer.
The repercussions of leaving the EU also seemed to be glossed over and belittled by Cameron. For example what would become of the many immigrants from Europe who currently (and legally) live in the UK? And what would this mean for the Britons who migrate or have migrated to the rest of Europe? An unnecessary mess of legislation would most probably result.
The most worrying aspect of this referendum however is quite simply the gravitas of the decision. Is the general public, especially in this climate of animosity, truly qualified to weigh up and decide if the benefits outweigh the detriments of staying in the EU? After all, one thing Cameron did get right in his speech was the statement that leaving would be a ‘one-way’ ticket, with no return. This is not a decision that can be rectified once made and it feels wrong that the rest of parliament did not take a vote on this before it was announced.
Unfortunately, it seems this rash popularity attempt is so far doing the trick, with the Conservatives moving up three points to 33 per cent in the latest opinion polls. Perhaps this referendum will help achieve an election victory in 2015, but the inevitably dire consequences would certainly prevent a subsequent one.
exeposedev 