I had a
short, but fairly intense, discussion with an avid Brexiter about the EU
referendum the other day. His fundamental case for voting to break away on June
23rd was to reclaim British ‘sovereignty’. He yearned for a country
with a Parliament that could make its own laws.
Of all the
arguments advanced by the ‘leave’ campaign, the reclaiming of sovereignty is, to
my mind the least compelling. Merriam-Webster defines the term as ‘unlimited
power over a country’ or ‘a country’s independent authority and the right to
govern itself’. It sounds fine in principle. Who could possibly disagree? But
what exactly does it mean in the world of 2016?
Naturally I’m
keen for the UK Parliament to retain power over matters that affect the British
people. But over the past 20 years or so, we’ve made decisions that have
transferred much of that power to other bodies, institutions and executives. The
Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament are the most obvious examples, although
the London Mayor has been slowly accruing more responsibilities too. Manchester
was recently granted the power to control its health spending, conceivably
paving the way for a two-tier NHS.
So we’re
quite happy to transfer power downwards when we believe that certain decisions are
better taken regionally or locally. And the reality is that other decisions are
best taken at a level that goes beyond our national borders. Particularly when
we’re talking about issues that transcend the boundaries of individual nation
states. Climate change, for instance. Security against terrorism. The
regulation of corporations and global financial institutions.
In order to
act effectively at a multinational level, we need multinational government,
just as much as we need local and regional government. And in order to achieve
this goal, we pool our sovereignty with others. We make compromises. It’s what
grown-ups do.
When we
joined NATO, we accepted that our ability to make autonomous decisions on
defence was limited. Under Article V, if one of our allies is attacked, we
commit to defend them. We’re bound by the treaty to do so. We consciously
restrict our ‘independent authority’ because we would like our allies to
support us if we were attacked.
Of course,
the Brexiters would no doubt say that the EU has become a monolithic
bureaucracy, which sets its own agenda and direction under the influence of Germany
and France. But the reality is that enormous checks and balances are included
in the system – including the incredibly restrictive requirement for every
single member state to agree most important changes. Perhaps if the UK had been
a more willing and energetic participant in the European Union over the years,
we would have shaped it in a way which is far more to our liking.
There are all
kinds of figures kicked around for the percentage of UK laws supposedly
originating in Brussels. But one thing the Brexiters need to be asked is
exactly which of these laws cause them such great anxiety. Is it the ones that enhance
the rights of employees? Those which give us clean beaches on which to
sunbathe? Or the regulations that provide protection for consumers?
If you ask,
you’re likely to get vague waffle about ‘red tape’ and a hotch-potch of old
wives’ tales about the regulation of the size and shape of fruit. Put them on
the spot. If they start talking about human rights, it’s hardly worth pointing
out that the European Convention actually has nothing to do with the EU. Just
tell them that most people actually quite like having some rights. Perhaps they’d
care to explain why they don’t?
Allied to the
protests about sovereignty is the bleating about democracy. Our government is democratic,
whereas the EU is not. Well, our Parliament has an unelected second chamber of
people appointed through political patronage. Hardly a paragon of democracy.
Our elected House
of Commons survives on an archaic first-past-the-post voting system which
wouldn’t pass the scrutiny of intelligent primary school children if they were
told how it worked and asked to compare it to alternatives. Government
ministers regularly use sweeping powers including so-called ‘statutory
instruments’ to make changes to existing Acts of Parliament.
The European
Parliament has actually gained in power and stature over the years. It was
granted greater authority by the Single European Act in the 1980s and by
treaties such as Maastricht and Lisbon. Has the authority of the British
legislature been enhanced in any way over the same period?
So spare me
the lectures. The EU isn’t perfect, but it might well be a much better place to
tackle the really important issues facing all of us in the coming 50 years.
Provided it’s not destroyed by those who hate its social agenda and politics of
compromise.
Comments
Post a Comment