The Europe con

I am old. Not as old as the Chewky Embra, but old enough to have seen most things before.
In my lifetime a succession of British Prime Ministers have gone off to 'get a better deal from Europe'. They have always come back, boasting of the good deal they got, when, in truth, very little was conceded by Europe, which is more interested in doing things which benefit all the member countries, than in things which benefit only one.
Now we have Theresa May going off to try the same con. What does she think she is going to negotiate? 
The club has fees, rules and benefits. Obey the rules, pay the fees and you can get the benefits.
We say we don't like the rules or the fees, so we are leaving the club. But we still want the benefits.
When Europe says: Dream on, May complains the Eurocrats are trying to punish us. This is arrogant nonsense.
More than 50 years ago, Harold Macmillan came back from Europe with his tail between his legs because General de Gaulle had said Non.
I will be interested to see what May boasts about when Europe ends the negotiations with Britain because we don't understand Non.

In: These rules. Out: those rules

Negotiations over our future relationship with the European Union are expected to be long and difficult.
Negotiations between Canada and the EU have been long and are still not completed.
The EU has a complex arrangement with Norway, another with Switzerland and a third with Greenland.
The World Trade Organisation has similar problems in getting agreement. The deals America is trying to do with others are likewise fraught.

Why doesn't the EU draw up a single contract which any country or company which wants to trade with it has to sign? 
This contract could specify the rules you have to follow, the tariffs and taxes you have to pay and so on. 
Countries which wanted to leave the EU or trade with the EU would then have certainty over what they had to do.
Membership inside the EU, with all the benefits that brings; one contract for those outside, without those benefits. 
This contract could be a model for other trading groups to follow.
I'm sure such a contract could be drawn up inside two years, sooner if lawyers are not involved.
It must be simpler than trying to negotiate with every country indvidually.

And if that is possible, why not draw up a single contract for citizens? Agree to these principles, pay this fee and you can be an individual mamber of the EU. If you don't you will have to jump through these hoops if you want to visit or live in the EU.
Having individuals living under another county's rules but following your principles could be a great way of promoting your values.

Aftershocks

An earthquake causes chaos. It often brings further chaos in its wake in the form of aftershocks and tsunamis.
The European Union referendum is doing likewise. The old certainties of countries and their political tribes are in danger of disappearing under the rubble and the waves.

The Conservatives and Labour now realise that at least half of the people who used to support them cannot be relied upon to follow the party line.

The public have discovered that politicians who normally tell you their opponents are idiots, can park their scorn and work with the opposition for a specific cause.

Westminster has discovered that Scotland is cleverer than it is. Northern bits of England think the government doesn't understand them or listen to them and deserves a good kicking. They are seduced by charlatans who tell them all their problems can be solved by getting out of Europe and stopping immigration.
In Scotland the Scottish National Party does understand its people, from the Gorbals to the Hebrides. They are pro-Europe, pro-immigration and feeling good about themselves. And the referendum has given them another reason for getting out of the UK.

Out of all this I expect to see new parties created, more coalition governments, more devolved power, more internet polls to test an idea before it is put to an official vote.

And we could see the return of an old idea - the city state, If a union of countries is too unwieldy, why not a union of cities. London, New York, Paris have more in common with each other than they have with the rest of their country. Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, and his Paris counterpart Anne Hidalgo wrote a joint letter to the FT this week suggesting more co-operation.

Blame game

Disappointing referendum result. Life will not be better out of the European Union.
The have nots will have even less and will have to find someone else to blame. Those who are celebrating today will help them - Donald Trump, Marine le Pen, Geert Wilders.
The EU will be better off without Britain opting out of this and that. It will move towards 'ever-closer union' and life there will get better.

United

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am a European. I think the European Union is a good idea. Working with other countries is good; working alone is bad.

I also like immigrants. Anyone who has the initiative to leave where they are and go somewhere else to get a better life is likely to be more successful than somebody who stays in Hull or Tirana and complains that there are no jobs.

And I question the belief that where we are born defines us. Governments think it does and gives us passports to reinforce that view. Politicians also claim that people who were born somewhere else are sufficiently different to be a threat. 
In this internet-connected society, we are defined by who we are, who our friends are, what interests and beliefs we have. I have more in common with people who have worked in newspapers, people who follow football and people interested in technology, wherever they are in the world, than I have with people in Britain who are interested in religion or TV personalities.
My interest in politics is not soley in Westminster; it is in how people in different countries tackle the problems we all face.

The internet is international. Big companies are international. Refugees are international. Crime and terrorism are international. If nation states are to survive, they must join forces with other nation states to become international, too.
Deciding to pull out of an international group because you don't like foreigners or you think our governments are so good they should be allowed to work without any help from outside, is obtuse.
And politicians who play on people's fears about immigrants have always been dangerous.

Please vote Remain on Thursday.

Friends, neighbours, migrants

Well done Caroline Lucas. The Green Party's only MP always talks sense and her contribution to the European debate says something no other politician has dared to say: the free movement of people is a good thing. 
'No case for the EU is complete without making clear just how much we value the contributions of our fellow Europeans to our country. They are our doctors, our nurses, our shopkeepers, our plumbers, our teachers, our professors, our builders. They are our friends, our neighbours.'
All we have heard so far is: immigrants = bad; free movement = terrorism.
Lucas counters this: 'The warped myth-making on migration won't be beaten by winning this referendum alone; it will be beaten when politicians are bave enough to stand up to the myths and lies and promote fair, alternative solutions.'
She is right. Immigrants are people like us who want to live somewhere where bombs don't fall, or regimes oppress. Or they simply want to achieve more than they can where they are.
When I was a young lad, I gave up the job I had in the city where I grew up and sought fame and fortune 300 miles away. How does that differ from a lad in Bulgaria wanting to see if he can make it in Germany, or Britain? That's what freedom of movement does. It gives people opportunities.
People from other countries may not look like us; they may not speak like us; they may be more keen on religion than us. Does that make them people to be feared, or interesting people from whom we may learn something? Do we still think we are best and all other people are inferior?
In American Donald Trump is gaining votes by telling people foreigners are the cause of all their troubles. I recall another demagogue telling the people of his country that all their troubles were caused by Jews. 
In Britain, we have Jeremy Corbyn challenging the status quo with a vision of the 1940s. And we have the Green Party, shaking things up with common sense on immigration and a basic state wage.
I like to think our radicals are more sensible than the Americans, but whether their voices are heard or drowned out by the bile will only become clear on June 24. 

Big pond, small pond

The European Union is about working together.

It believes that European interests are as important as national interests, and, in time, will become more important than national interests.

The freedom of movement, goods and services, along with the single currency, make the people of Europe citizens of a continent, not just a country.

Politicians in Britain and in several other countries, cannot get their heads around this. They keep banging on about their national interest.

The solution is not, as David Cameron suggests, for Europe to become more like Britain. It is for those who believe in a European future to divest themselves of those who don’t.

Not a two-speed Europe, a single-minded Europe which decides on what terms other countries can deal with it.

The Europeans will decide what happens; share services, resources, regulations and data; deal as a group with international companies and other countries.

Those outside won’t have any say in what happens; won’t have the same access to services, resources or data; and will have to deal with multi-national companies and other countries on their own.

I want to be a European. I may be in a minority in Britain, if the media and politicians are to be believed. But my life will be better if the things which affect me are decided by Dutch, French, German and Italian representatives as well as those from Britain than it will be if my local representatives decide them all with no reference to any wider picture.

People in glass houses . . .

The European Union Competition Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, is going after Google. She reckons Google dominates the search market and should not 'abuse its powerful market position by restricting competition with others in markets where it is dominant, or in neighbouring markets'.
Interesting how European commissioners are keen to tackle big American companies, but less keen to tackle the protectionism in many European countries and in farming all over the EU, which also restricts competition.
The EU tackled Microsoft and insisted it changed the way it bundled browser and other software with its operating system. There are lots of operating systems and lots of browsers, but the EU still thought it ought to be brought down a peg or two to give the second-raters a hand. 
Likewise there are many search engines and many comparison websites. Google is used by most people because it is the best and it is free. You can pay to have your adverts appear in Google searches, but to the ordinary punter, the service is free. Nonetheless, the EU thinks it restricts competition.
Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple have all succeeded because their founders are driven mavericks who made brilliant ideas work. They did not need government help.
Any European entrepreneurs who aim to match those achievements will do so by their own efforts, not because the EU has hobbled the market leaders. 
I'm in favour of the European Union, but this sort of government-knows-best nonsense gives huge help to the anti-Europe nationalists.
Europe should sort out its own problems before trying to put the world to rights.

Protecting citizens or spooks?

Britain is rushing through emergency legislation to force internet and phone service providers to keep customers' data for a year to allow police and security services to check what criminals and terrorists are planning.
The Government and the opposition parties say we must do this because the European Court of Justice ruled on 8 April that Europe's 2004 Data Retention Directive on keeping such data was invalid and if we don't pass this new legislation, Google, O2 and the rest will stop keeping the data and terrorists will run riot.
Here, our media has debated this with those who say we will all be blown up if we don't grab this data on one side and those who say our data is not to be spied upon on the other. Our media has not asked what other European countries are doing. 
Finland's Education Minister Krista Kiuru is all for the new Court of Justice ruling: 'Naturally, we must clean out the paragraphs enacted due to the Directive. We will gladly adhere to this decision. If we want Finland to be a model country when it comes to data protection, our legislation has be be in accordance with the fundamental citizen rights'.
Germany and the Czech Republic challenged the Directive when it was enacted and were threatened with fines if they did not comply with it. They will be delighted now that it has been ruled invalid. Sweden refused obey the Directive for many months and will also be delighted.
Why is our government frightening us with terror talk? Two possible reasons spring to mind:
1. Terrorists are more likely to attack the UK because of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. The Americans have told us to bring in new UK laws to ensure that the CIA has this data to use.
Ever since the Data Retention Directive was passed in 2004, countries in mainland Europe have been trying to protect their citizens by getting it repealed.
In that time, Britain has gone further than the Directive in keeping data and says it is protecting its citizens in the 'war on terror'.
Who do you want to be protected by?

Us and them

Our politicians and our popular press just don’t get Europe.
They see it as foreigners interfering in our affairs.
Germany, France and the other people who do get Europe see it as a terrific opportunity to do things together, rather than separately.
Our lot see it in terms of ‘What’s in it for us?’. The enlightened majority in Europe see it as ‘What can we do for all of us?’
Cameron doesn’t want Europe doing things for us, yet he goes to the G8 summit and says G8 must do something to deal with multi-national companies dodging tax. Isn’t this something Europe could do more effectively than a single country can do on its own?
It’s fascinating. The arguments being used for the UK breaking away from Europe are exactly the same as the arguments the Scots are using for breaking away from the UK. But the UK going alone is seen as good whereas the Scots going alone is seen as bad.
I like change. I want the Scots to try it on their own. I’d love the Northern Irish to do the same.
I’d like England to be a full member of a federal Europe.
According to the politicians, I’m in a minority. Am I? Maybe a referendum would show there are more like me.

The United States of Europe

What Merkel and Sarkozy have grasped and Cameron has not, is that a United States of Europe will be so much more than the individual countries are on their own.
The European countries are at a crossroad. The sway they held over the world when they were cultured and adventurous and much of the world was savage has long gone. America, with its federation of states, became dominant in the 20th century. China is dominant now. And India, Brazil and the other tigers are coming up fast.
Change is everywhere. The change that ended the USSR; the change in the Arab world; the change in financial certainties.
Do we see all this and re-think our own position? Not if we are David Cameron and the Tory right. They still think we are a world power.
Others are taking a new look. Alex Salmond in Scotland is thinking the unthinkable. Independence for the tartan hordes. As most of the Scottish voters voted for his party, he is likely to win his argument. What then?
He might create an alliance with the Scandanavian countries. But what if he wrote to Brussels and said 'We'd like to be a European country, complete with the euro'?
That might make the anti-Europe English sit up. If the Scots believe there is a benefit in being part of a federation, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. It has certainly helped the Irish to get out of the financial hole they dug themselves.
The Tory right and the popular press don't like the idea, but if there was a United States of Europe with a single president, a single currency and financial policy, a single defence/attack policy, would Britain still be great?
Could anyone have forseen that the proud Germans would give up their mark, the French give up their franc? That a graduate in Bordeaux could get a job in Frankfurt or Rome? That a company making widgets in Rotterdam could sell them easily from Poland to Spain?
Would we be as likely to rush off and invade Iraq or Afghanistan if our vainglorious leaders had to get more level-headed leaders in Berlin and Madrid to agree first?
In our isolated island, we concentrate too much on our Parliamentary history, our hatred of bureaucracy, our fear of change.
We should be more positive and see the possibilities of a U.S.E.
Any party which is brave enough at the next election to say it will join Europe and the euro will get my vote.