Speaking to the Fabian Society this weekend, David Miliband described the latest offering from David Cameron on Europe as “either a meaningless or dangerous policy”.

Meaningless because convincing the other EU member states to agree to the proposed changes would have been exceptionally difficult for a Conservative Party in the European People’s Party, and impossible for one in the European Conservatives and Reformists. There is nothing that Britain could offer them that would make the opt-outs promised by David Cameron viable, and we, as a country, would look absolutely foolish in Europe if we pushed for those at the expense of more important issues. They are empty promises to fool the euro-sceptic contingent until after the general election. Ultimately, our parliament is sovereign – European Community law is only enforceable under the European Communities Act 1972 – and if that is not good enough for those who agree with Mr Cameron and his supporters, then let us be frank: the only thing that will be satisfactory is leaving the EU. Why else kick up such a fuss over such a boring treaty – and further, one that actually makes the EU more democratic?

Highlighting inconsistencies in the Tory stance is important, and it has been done better and more extensively elsewhere – but it is not enough. There are plenty among the electorate who agree that we are better off out, and this, at least to some extent, is our fault. We have not made the case for Europe, we should have been doing it better for years, and we are fast running out of time.

So what would you tell someone if you had to make the case for Europe? I’d talk about jobs – the 2.5 million jobs that would not have been created unless borders had been opened up. I’d talk about the money that the EU provides to disadvantaged areas of the UK – in the seven years between 2007 and 2014 it will give £8bn to help tackle poverty, joblessness and poor infrastructure. I’d talk about holidays – when British citizens go on holiday in Europe, they can move freely from country to country, safe in the knowledge that they have access to medical treatment that won’t put them out of pocket, if they need it. If their children want to study in an EU country while at University, enhancing their educations and broadening their horizons, they can. And if they want to take the plunge and move to another EU territory, all they need is a UK passport, a job or other form of income, comprehensive sickness insurance – and they can.

And one thing is for certain – I would talk about these, and the myriad other benefits of EU membership, all the time, I’d brag about them – and I’d be very clear that we were in a good position to make the EU even better, more efficient, more democratic. Because if we want to have any say in how our world is shaped, we are not going to do it as a tiny island which has cut itself off from its neighbours through arrogance, price and avarice.

This blog was originally posted on House of Twits, with photograph from London Summit.

Categories: Being European
Tags: david cameron, david miliband, eu, eu groupings, fabian society, lisbon treaty

Be the first to comment »

My views on some of the other parties belonging to the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) grouping have been crystallised in recent weeks as the debate has heated up. No party has an untainted history, but there is a wide gulf between facing up to and learning from an unsavoury past, and closing your eyes to it in the hope that it will be forgotten. Latvia’s For Fatherland and Freedom Party shows the latter to perfection. When this alliance was denounced by David Miliband during his speech at the Labour Party conference, William Hague labelled it a smear, and demanded that Mr Miliband apologise – to Eric Pickles, the Conservative Party, and Latvia. Further, he accused him of not knowing his history, saying the Latvians who had joined the Waffen-SS had been conscripted, and therefore For Fatherland and Freedom (and others) were fine to honour their memory.

Of course, this was quickly shown to be a gross simplification of a very complicated period in history. You don’t have to take my word for it – check here for a fairly comprehensive summary.

Based on the information cited, I see no defence for the alliance between the Conservative Party and such figures. I understand why they have – but their desire to form a strong euro-sceptic opposition grouping (a very separate matter) does not excuse it. But the Tories I speak with on Twitter tend to throw out one final barb on the matter – that Labour’s own EU grouping, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats (S&D), is not exactly whiter than white. This has been remarked on by the ever-vocal Daniel Hannan MEP, who kindly directed me to a CentreRight blog post by Daniel Hamilton, who in turn outlines some of our “unsavoury allies” in Europe. So, let’s see then. First on the block is Ireland’s Proinsias De Rossa MEP, who Mr Hamilton says was “interned by the Irish government in the late 1950s for his involvement in the IRA’s border campaign – a campaign which caused the deaths of six British policemen.” But this is not quite correct, as one of the blog’s commentators points out:

De Rossa was a member of the Old IRA, not the Provos. They tended towards a Marxist perspective, opposed the provisionals alliance with “reactionaries” in the South, opposed the killing of working class British soldiers. They became Sinn Fein The Workers Party, then the Workers Party, a Marxist group – which became a reformed Marxist group…ergo a social democratic group called Democratic Left- which eventually merged with the Irish Labour Party. In most of these guises De Rossa was opposed to Irish Republicanism. Not just violence, but the idea of a United Ireland by force…So Labour are allying themselves with the Irish Labour party.

I think I can just about live with an alliance with the Irish Labour Party. Another individual highlighted is Giulietto Chiesa MEP. I can find little to recommend him and his largely baseless conspiracy theories. He is not who I would choose to sit with. But he hasn’t killed anyone, and isn’t honouring anyone who has.

Next is Turkey’s Democratic Society Party (DTP), an associate party to the Party of European Socialists (PES). As Mr Hamilton says, the main criticism of the DTP is that they have long been accused of being the official mouthpiece of the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), and has refused to label them a terrorist organisation – unlike the EU itself, which does. The issue is not black and white by any means – the leadership of the DTP maintains that they support a unified Turkey within a democratic framework, and that they are not affiliated with the PKK. At grassroots level, the lines are less clear. However, the EU has made it clear that Turkish Kurds, who represent 20 percent of the population, need to have parliamentary representation. It is murky, but can be simplified into a separate debate – that is, should Turkey be part of the EU? If you think yes (which most EU member states do), then we need to work with Turkish parties to make the changes required.

The difference between this and For Fatherland and Freedom is simply that no-one is denying that the DTP has these links and problems – the Conservative Party, on the other hand, is brushing the pasts of their allies under the rug – as though their histories are inconsequential, a side issue. As such, I don’t feel hypocritical for criticising the ECR grouping. The fact that some of their allies have the history that they do is bad, but the denial is much, much worse.

This blog was originally posted on House of Twits.

Categories: Being European, Screaming Howlers
Tags: daniel hannan, eric pickles, eu, eu groupings, giulietto chiesa, ira, ireland, latvia, proinsias de rossa, second world war, turkey, william hague

Be the first to comment »