Having the EU Referendum foisted upon us, by a Prime Minister who has been backed into a corner by a rebellious party, on a thin majority , means we, the voting public, now have the opportunity to decide our countries future. By some it is seen as our route to salvation, by others a great threat to future stability of Europe and the UK.
I have been watching the debate on costs, benefits, sovereignty and patriotism that has been extolled by both sides of the debate and now wonder how I should be voting. It has also set me considering the mental processes we all should go through to try and determine how we should vote.
The Prime Ministers “hard won” concessions from the rest of the EU leaders in February are claimed by In supporters to show how we can be part of the EU while still retain a special relationship with it, compared to other EU members. This maybe true, and one may also question how much of it was basically arranged to make the process look tougher and harder than it really was. I am sure most other EU countries were prepared to make our negotiations work, to allow the PM to come back to the UK claiming a significant victory. Out supporters also had the chance to claim they changes were not sufficient to prevent our continued loss of sovereignty and all the other evils of the EU.
We are now hearing of the positive effects there will be if we leave; the negative effects if we stay; the negative effects if we leave and the positive effects if we stay! Confused?
It maybe my nature, but I think we should be looking at a deeper level than just the positive or negative, the fluff of news headlines, sound bites or statistics and the lies that are hitting the headlines, getting the shares or re-tweets; but we should be looking at the intuitive reasoning we all have in our being.
When I look back at our history; and I believe it is a great history; the UK has lead the World in so many areas, our influence, good and bad, has played important roles in most areas of society, science, politics, industry etc etc. Now that history has always been linked with us leading the way starting within the country, the ideas then moving abroad being, and taken up by others. I don’t accept revisionist historians, we did what we did because it was what we thought was the best course of action at the time. (what would they revise when looking back at us 200 years hence?) But our lead for much of the last 400 years has come about because we are a melting pot, with influences, thoughts and genetics from many different peoples of the world. One may argue that this mix of culture going back over 2000 years, compared to many other countries, along with our island status, has left us with a unique view on the World and how it should work.
Those that claim we should be able to claim back our sovereignty by leaving Europe are, I perceive, in denial of that history. When were we truly sovereign? When did we have a chance to operate without regard to our relationships to others in the world? Looking back-
Post War- Membership of NATO, the United Nations and EU
WW2, no matter how we play it and with the admittance of Churchill, we needed the USA?
Post WW1 with the formation of the League of Nations- working together;
19th Century- Ruled by a German Royal family
18th Century – Dutch Royal Family
14th – 17th Century Strong influence of Catholic Church
Medieval Period – French influence of ruling families and land owners
Dark Ages – Viking Rule – Danelaw
55-54 BC Julius Caesar’s Roman expedition to Britain
Iron Age- tribal Kingdoms
We have never been a totally sovereign nation, where we have been free to make choices without external countries or peoples having an effect of what we do.
I cannot see for one moment how leaving the EU will allow the UK to regain a sovereignty that is truth we have never really possessed. Yes it might mean we can scrap the working time directive for example, but workers can opt out now anyway, and actually many people quite like not having to work more hours than necessary! We might reduce the constraints of lorry drivers hours, until a driver falls asleep and causes multiple deaths on a motorway; In truth many of the EU imposed rules are quite liked by people, even if they don’t quite appreciate the reasoning.
Some have argued that the rules are not followed by other countries, firstly as a member of the EU lets get that changed by engaging, secondly, if we are not members, what influence will we have?
I cannot understand those that claim we can work better with the rest of the world and don’t need the European market as much as they need us. They are our nearest neighbour. In terms of practicality, ease of access, it must make more sense to trade with, on an open basis those closest to you. As more of the world progresses and rises the economic ladder costs of all commodities including fuel will rise. Movement of good will become, and is becoming an important factor in the price of industrial production. Not only that, but currently if we wish to export products to the EU we must meet EU rules of quality of construction. Some are claiming this is unnecessary Red Tape, but this will still be in place if we wish to export to the EU, but we could scrap all these regulations for the UK, meaning production will have to be to two levels one for export to EU and one for home/rest of world. So Red Tape will still be in place. I spend two -three days a week in factories in the UK and Europe and no one ever mentions to me the excessive red tape they face. I cannot see that for the majority of workers and consumers in the UK any Brexit Government will do more than tinker at the extremes of rules, without huge public backlash, once they start to see what is at stake.
The scariest faction with in the Leave campaign, as I see them, are the Free Marketeers, who want to open the UK up to a totally free trade position. This group, with a tendency to be big- big oil, big business, big pharma, big ag. believe basically in the market, letting the devil take the hindmost. This group, do not mind if we loose the EU regulation, as it is too controlling for their likes, it asks too many questions, or ensures safety or rights or the environment get some say before profit. They want the lowest cost, at any cost to be able to make their products on the shelf. If it means lets have more imports of cars from China, with their emission levels, lets make it happen; lets have cheap foods for processing and if the farmers of the UK can’t match the price so what? No matter the environmental or welfare costs at the point of production. But, they say, we can export to any country in the world, without the rules of the EU putting our prices up. We will have trade agreements with other countries and send all our quality products to China and India. If they are quality products, then they are produced to a high quality, therefore not cheap to produce, therefore EU rules will have little effect on cost of production; and quality production does not employ the whole working population and finally, are we not doing that at present. Secondly, we may as a country get some short term windfall export deals, but in the longer term, China, India and the like will move their standard requirements upwards and do the free traders think that the EU will not have a strong influence upon how they develop their own rules. As at this present moment in time, they know if they wish to sell into the EU they have to meet our standards.
What of the EU if we leave? In all the guessing and posturing that is occurring, I have yet to hear what of the future of the 27 remaining countries may hold. I suspect their Governments are really quite worried. It we vote leave, there will be pressure from many parties, especially on the right to force votes in other countries. Will it then strain the Euro, would it collapse as Governments start to pull away from the centre, to appease those wanting to leave? Will it bring about the disintegration of the EU? Those wanting us to leave, no doubt will be smiling saying we knew it wouldn’t last! But what comes next? With migration pressure, at least the EU can been seen to be working together, yes with difficulty, but at least together. And in future years, with climate change ( Not that Vote leavers Lawson, Farage and Paterson believe in it) who is to say what we have seen from Syria would not pale into insignificance! The breakup of the EU would set the continent and us back politically, maybe 100 years and look where that lead us.
No I do not live in an ivory tower, the world and the EU are not perfect, many things could be changed, but at the bottom of it all we must and should work together as closely as we can, for the world is getting smaller and our role and direct influence, becoming less and less. Although we have an illustrious past we must recognise today we have around 0.000001% of the worlds population! We need the EU.
This brings me to my final point, the future! How can we as a country, in this more and more integrated world become more isolationist. Should we become the North Korea of Europe? All our lives are becoming more and more inter linked with national boundaries being seen by the younger generations are less and less important. We realise how the vast majority of other countries and peoples are just like us, with the same dreams, wishes and desires. Yes we do like our identity, but it is becoming a personal identity, with our immediate surroundings less important, our lives interlinked by social media and much wider travel than ever in the past. The minds of the younger generation are open to much more that mine ever was at their age. This referendum should be about them and I have stated before, that it should only those under 50 should be allowed to vote, as they are the ones in 10 or 20 or 30 years times that will feel the full force of any decision made on the 23rd June.
systems4food 