As we spiral towards a referendum in June 2016 watch out for the spin of verbosity. It’s butter-up time at the polls. You will be near deafened by the bald tales from either side. Who has the correct answer about Europe, the stay- put brigade or the opt- out gang?
It should be obvious that big business, multinationals will favour the UK remaining in the embrace of the EU. It serves their business purpose. If Europe did not meet their needs they would be seen leading the charge to leave.
We are bound to hear stories of dire consequences, for jobs, livelihoods and a whole
gambit of other ghouls that awaits us if we depart. There will be ghosts in every unlocked cupboard which will become increasingly terrifying as we get closer to election day.
Nationalism will be bandied around like a worn tennis ball. Only Putin will be happy if we leave! However, an exit will not affect the sanctions that the EU has imposed on Russia over the Ukraine crisis. It will not affect policy on Syria. It’s all a smokescreen to remind the older voter of the Cold War.
Cameron’s position is weak because he gained only crumbs from the EU table. Did he expect anything else? Time will show that the ‘gains’ are meaningless. His cause has only brought about a poorly constructed but definite political grave.
There was no mention of structural change because it would not have reached the table for discussion. No matter that the time frame was too tight, with insufficient space for major issues to be studied and debated. Why the rush? He locked himself in a cupboard by advocating a referendum and, viewing public opinion knew he had to put his skates on.
Being kind I would say that the rush to the polls was bad advice from his advisors. If real change had been on Cameron’s agenda he would have taken his time; we have until 2020 to get a response. So why didn’t we ask for more? The answer is sky- blue; he knew it would not be negotiable.
Look closely at what the Prime Minister brought home and this tells us that the EU has no intention to change. We can have a few crumbs if we close the door behind us and shut up. The electorate has been played, duped and now we need to be herded quickly before we understand.
The EU can only survive with fundamental structural reform. It has been floundering since conception. The euro was another massive mistake. Europe is still recovering from the 2008 banking crisis; it will take several more years to swim clear.
A lack of an audit and the continual escalation of spend is a sky-blue indication that the whole bureaucratic system has no direction and no leadership. It is a growing giant of an octopus. It will fail and the cost of life support will be huge.
Many leading economists had grave reservations about the introduction of the euro and misgivings about its future. Paul Krugman describes it as Europe’s big delusion (pp177-187) and a mistake from the beginning (p168) Krugman argues that it lacked a central focus such as the US Federal Reserve or the Bank of England. The European Central Bank (ECB) basically followed German thinking.
He illustrates how the euro and the ECB directly affected the countries of: Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Greece driving them deeper into recession. The policy of austerity was foisted on them. It would take seven (7) years before the ECB accepted quantitative easing (printing money to buy debt) and poured 3.2bn euros to support them.
Joseph Stiglitz another Nobel Prize winning economist lays austerity bare when he states,”…there has been almost no instances of countries that have recovered from a crisis through austerity”. (pxxv) Dani Rodrik yet another top economist has much to say on the experience of Argentina and its austerity programme. (Chapter 9 pp184-206) It was a disaster!
In essence the EU has caused many of its own problems rushing forward politically without thought of consequence. It is plagued by indecision and a thought process which operates on the basis of – what’s in it for me- (WIIFM)
The EU apparatus is divorced from the citizenry. The people don’t matter. The WIIFM syndrome is illustrative of its political absurdity. There is no unity of purpose, only agendas. Rodrik (p215) is scathing, “European Parliament operates mostly as a talking shop rather than as a source of legislative initiative or oversight”.
Such being the case gives lobbyists an open door. Francis Fukuyama (pp501-502) points to a quirk, he terms ‘jurisdiction-shop’. It works on the basis that if unsuccessful at their national level lobbyists simply pack their briefcase and head for Brussels. He cites the work of political scientist Christine Mahoney who suggests that ‘outside groups’ those seeking social change have ‘significantly less access to European Institutions’.
To further illustrate the lack of unity Rodrik (p218) is unequivocal when he says that when the EU comes under stress ‘the responses are overwhelmingly national’. The migrant crisis we are presently experiencing is a sky-blue example of such a scenario.
Europe is not for turning!! Unless it is prepared to, we must jump ship!!
- Paul Krugman End This Depression Now!
- Joseph Stiglitz The Price of Inequality.
- Dani Rodrik The Globalization Paradox
- Francis Fukuyama Political Order and Political Decay