Mary Dejevsky: Britain, Europe and a history of lamentable mis-timing
David Cameron is swimming against the tide of history
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
A week or so ago, I sat metaphorically open-mouthed at a London think-tank, as a series of speakers systematically demolished all the arguments commonly advanced in support of the British-US "special relationship". What was said, in summary, was this.
Britain had to accept that she was a medium-sized power, with size, wealth and reach very different from those of the United States. The relationship would only ever become more unequal, as the US pursued global ambitions, and China hove into view. Britain's military and other capabilities would be distorted – to our disadvantage – if we tried to keep up with the US. And identifying our national interests so closely with those of the United States placed us in the demeaning position of having to change our foreign policy whenever the US elected a new administration, even though our own government was the same.
The conclusion was that our future foreign and defence policy alignment had to be with the European Union, although for the time being membership of Nato and the EU could be reconciled.
My general astonishment, though, was only partly a response to the arguments being set out from the platform, cogent though they were. Mostly it was because the audience, rich in frontline military, defence and diplomatic experience, and of an age to be Atlanticist by temperament, seemed to be more in agreement with what was being said than not. No one challenged the view that Britain not only had to cut its coat according to its cloth, but needed, for defence and foreign policy purposes, to be part of something bigger – and that something was probably the European Union.
In the space of a couple of hours almost every sacred defence cow was slaughtered, from Britain's moral responsibility to engage in humanitarian intervention around the globe to the expense of renewing the Trident nuclear deterrent. Our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan were discussed not as demonstrations of our global reach, but as chastening experiences illustrating the limits of our capability. There was no suggestion that either venture should, or could, be repeated.
Many trends converge here, but together they make for a comprehensive rethink of Britain's diplomatic direction. One is certainly the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, that have turned out to be rather more cruel than the cakewalk someone promised. Another is President Obama's tendency to see Britain as part of Europe, rather than a beloved old comrade-in-arms. But there are many others. The economic crisis, more acute in Britain than in many other countries, because of the emphasis deliberately placed on financial services, will necessitate public spending cuts from which defence and diplomacy will not be spared.
Bernard Grey's report on defence procurement – just published, after a delay – points up current extravagance, but also a future bill running into billions that not only cannot be paid, but covers advance orders that have no hope of matching long-term requirements. There are calls for more and better advance planning and for a US-style four-yearly defence review – one is already in the offing. The Prime Minister's decision to reduce our four nuclear submarines to three may, with hindsight, be seen as the point at which Britain's late 20th century ambitions began to shrink.
How far this reassessment of Britain's relations with the outside world was reflected in the front ranks of government, as opposed to the corridors of power, was nonetheless hard to gauge. Until yesterday, that is, when the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, gave one of the most Europhile – and least Atlanticist – speeches ever delivered to a British audience by any minister since Labour took office 12 years ago.
Setting the scene for Britain to enact its foreign policy primarily through the EU, Mr Miliband effectively buried the "special relationship". He insisted that Europe was "no replacement for Britain's partnership with the United States", but everything else he said dictated otherwise. The US featured as just another big power. "Europe," he said, "is our continent."
It is tragic, of course, that just as its authority is ebbing away, this government – or at least this foreign secretary – is discovering his inner European. And while Mr Miliband's speech might have been more a personal pitch for a European job than a comprehensive reorientation of government policy, in the end it scarcely matters. What we seem to be watching is yet another lamentable piece of mis-timing.
Even as the preponderance of our diplomatic and defence establishment is accepting Europe as the logical arena of Britain's influence, we look set to vote into office a government more Eurosceptic than any since we joined the EU. At a time when Britain could have blended with the European mainstream, David Cameron is swimming against the tide of history, his only allies on the margins. The one consolation for Britain's pro-Europeans must be that, before he takes on Brussels, Mr Cameron could be heading for a train-wreck on the Europe question here at home.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I would suggest that the Tories forget about the Lisbon Treaty, which looks like it will have been signed long before the election and instead hold a referendum on whether they should try to take back some of the powers that have gone to Europe and for this I believe they will have the vast support of the UK electorate. Labour gave away our EU rebate on the understanding that the CAP would be reviewed, it never has been and so billions of pounds have been lost for nothing. If the Tories get in , they should withhold the rebate money until there is an agreement that the powers are returned and the CAP is properly reformed.
Find we have no negotiating power to be admitted to a free trade area.
And we have no control over out economic future (look at Iceland).
Watch the pound sink to 0.1 Euro (it's making its way there already).
Watch the bankers head off.
Then wait for ten years while we shrivel up.
Then beg to be re-admitted.
Have balls. You know it's what you want to do.
She reported what she witnessed. The only piece of "analysis" was to say that Miliband might be posturing for the EU job and that the timing is weird because we're about to elect a bunch of die-hard isolationists and the only piece of opinion was that it sucks... which it does.
.
But, actually. Bring on the referendum on IN or OUT. All of you people who seem so certain that this is all against the people's will might be surprised. To be honest, I don't believe the English would have the balls to pull out. At the end of the day you would have so swallow your pride, realize what you stand to lose and vote IN. I am absolutelly confident about an IN landslide that would suth you up once and for all.
However, to do so as part of a political union, a mere cog in a european superstate, in which we progressively loose our sovereign identity and our right to self determination as a nation, is what sticks in the craw of the vast majority of the poulation. What people find objectionable is that snivelling non-entities like Peter somebody-or-other, Hungary's foreign minister can appear on the BBC's HARDtalk programme, (as he recently did) and claim that the EU has the support of the european people purely because the elected governments of those people wish to move to complete political union.
In 2005 we were promised a referendum by one of those governments (on the Lisbon Treaty), a hollow promise on a fundamental issue that proved to be mere electioneering. Renaging on that one promise alone is a clear indication to the British people that governments cannot be trusted to place the will of it's electorate (as demonstrated by innumerable anti EU OP's)above the promotion of it's own interests and agenda. British sceptisism over the agenda of the EU with regard to its structure and political process is shared by a significant majority of EU citizens, many of whom have, unlike we Brits, been historically subjected to the kind of despotic and dictatorial domination that the political framework promoted and expanded by the Lisbon Treaty makes possible.
That the lives of 500 million people, not just the 62 million in the UK, should be determined by a handfull of unelected mandarins, headed by a similarly unelected head of state, all supported by quite possibly the most expensive and extensive buerocracy on the planet, coupled to an EU parliment which is merely a rubberstamp for the decisions taken by the European Commission, is deeply offensive to the ideals democracy as understood by the vast majority of people in this country. Whilst our sovereign democracy is not perfect, we do retain the ultimate right to veto (by non re-election) of those who
make decisions on our behalf. In an EU superstate we will no longer have this right; EU poiticians are, and increasingly will essentially be non-accountable for the key dcisions they make that affect all of our fundamental freedoms and the liberties we (decreasingly, thanks to the EU and the concept of 'big
government') enjoy, won with the blood of our forefathers.
That, and that alone is why I believe the Conservatives are not 'flying in the face of history' and why they have genuinely captured the spirit of the people on this particular issue. How much is electioneering on their own behalf and what they will ultimately do if elected remains to be seen. It should be remembered that economic prosperity and international influence can be achieved, without political union, by legally binding international treaty.
Political union serves all interests EXCEPT those of democracy and of the people, whose roll is merely to be entertained, informed and controlled by the psuedo-libertarian elitists who think they know what's best for us all.
.
At the end of the day you would have so swallow your pride, realize what you stand to lose and vote IN. There are no small steps back. There is a reason why the Lisbon Treaty has (for the first time) a provision to allow member states to leave. That reason is England.
.
Also, if Britain leaves the EU, it will be the end of the UK. Scotland would break away in a blink of an eye and join the Eurozone immediatelly. England would remain the great conquerers of Wales and Northen Ireland. Can you imagine the extent of England's power and influence on the world stage then? Can you imagine its ability to survive in a dog eat dog global economy. The next tori government's approach to Europe will sentence your children and grand children to a life of poverty... and you still won't have any sovereignty. Maybe you can tout your nuclear subs to the Somalian pirates, they could use an upgrade.
.
I am absolutelly confident about an IN landslide that would shut you up once and for all.
Good article and for the other posters to this message board; read what was said. It doesn't matter what you think, what the public (supposidly) think. the reality is that the people who have to defend us have already accepted that we can no longer afford to go it alone or go with America. During the past decade if we had done that, we would no have had to fight so hard in Iraq or Afghanistan, we would have supplied the token force other EU countries have had. Our financial crisis would not have been as big if we had followed the example of Germany or France. Strategically, instead of relyng on airports we woud be looking into integrating our rail service, we would be also have been better to adopt the energy policies of the French and Germans instead of the ERON style free enterprise model which has left us with the most expensive energy in the continent.
Our tragedy is that because we share the English language we are subject to colonisation by American ideas and influences, many of them alien, pernicous, and dangerous, whereas in reality our culture is more akin to our continental neighbours than our transatlantic cousins.
All Cameron and his motley crew are doing is making a bit of political capital out of something the majority of their donors would not want or allow to happen. The fairyland of opposition is one thing but the reality of government will ensure that the UK is still part of the EU.
.
No, seriously though. Well said. Good analysis. Cameron wants the Czech President to sign the bloody thing more than anybody. Can you imagine the nightmare of having to u-turn on the referendum promise?
.
These people are convinced that the policy makers and architects of the EU are on their level of reasoning. They are 10 steps ahead. Of course the Treaty takes the British electoral cycle into account, of course there is an IN/OUT clause this time around. They have learned so much from dealing with Thatcher and Major and Blair. They know exactly what the British stalling tactics have been over the last 30 years. This time it's check-mate. No more gray areas for populist British politicians to hide behind.
.
The funny thing is that, for the first time, the EU is doing to Britain what these people are constantly telling immigrants: If you don't like it, get out.
Let's ask Gordon Brown how that feels.
As to the special relationship with the USA. Ms Dejevsky should remember that Obama is cosying up to Cameron because he realises that Brown and his cronies are losers. So there might well be a special relationship after our deluded PM and his bananna holding Foreign Secretary are safely on the opposition benches.
As I said before I've no idea how the British public would vote but how they vote doesn't change what I believe. Intelligent debate might.
:)
dunque123, asking everone to vote on a particular issue may be the ultimate exercise in democracy but is it also the best way to run a state?
If you have a company whose managers work out a complicated contract on a number of issues to deal with other companies you'd think that they should do the right job. That's why they are in a manager position in the first place so they can oversee matters on a larger scale.
If the managers now let the entire staff, all accountants, credit controllers, cleaners, PR people, handy man etc. , vote on that contract and a majority of the staff would think "Nah, don't like the manager and anyway, I like things to stay as there are" than that would also be ultimate democracy.
But the company might be fucked quickly.
Do you think you have the insight about what is best for Britains interests in regards to security, economy etc?
And do you think most people have that?
Well I for my part am not someone of low confidence or a lack of education and information.
But quite frankly I'd let things being decided on a suitable level.
I'm concerned that the mob who are always against everything that means change and want a referendum on everything might get they way one day.
Because we will be digging our own grave.
Today's Britains nuclear and defence systems rely on US navigation and supply. I can go on. but it is clear that Britain has to divorce itself from the one sided partnership, grow up and take its proper place in the 21st Century world.
Sadly, the Tories are on the way who will continue to put the interests of a foreign power before our own
2) It is not at all sad that the Tories are on the way, it is excellent.
3) In the event of a serious power being in conflict with Britain, who would our allies be without the US ?
Surely you dont think the gutless wonders in Western Europe would be worth 2 penny worth of cold shit in any situation of danger. This Afghan thing is very unpleasant all round but it is living proof (if any were needed) about Europe and its commitment to defend itself.
The Millipede seems to think it would recommend both the EU and the Lisbon Treaty to us if we were given Tony Blair and his loathsome consort Cherie Antoinette as the First Couple of Europe. I would have thought the opposite is the truth. We were assured before 2005 General Election that the Constitutional Treaty would be put to a referendum, however, when ZANU Labour won, it immediately reneged on its word. Referendums held on the Treaty in France and the Netherlands had both been lost and the British could obviously not now be trusted to vote the 'right' way on the (cunningly renamed) Lisbon Treaty. The appointment of Blair and Cherie Antoinette as the unelected Royal Couple of Europe would only emphasize the extent to which 'Lisbon' is anti-democratic.
And what exactly would it mean to pursue foreign policy objectives "primarily through the EU"? Having one vote in 27, we would have little power to influence EU policy in this or any other area.
Because this is the real world. simple.
Turkey wishes it had the luxury of those two options and... guess what? Turkey will soon have a vastly greater international role to play than England, which makes sense, given their size and population.
Yes, this is the real world. My comment was about the real world, and the real democracy we are really giving up in order to be part of a real bloc which is damaging to our real interests. What good is the EU's power when it is pushing for something that damages us eg the new financial directive which is about to send our hedge fund industry scurrying to Geneva en masse?
If you are in a club it is governed by rules. The present rules designed for 6 members don't work particularly well when there are 27 members. The Lisbon rules seem to be an attempt get the club working more smoothly.
UK anti-EU conservatives are not interested in the Lisbon Treaty, they want Britain out of the EU. Full Stop. They should stop pretending. Any referendum should be framed in that context. So anti-EU please explain how Britain will be better off out of the EU.
There can be a discussion about whether or not the rules of the Lisbon treaty are the best, but that is a totally different issue.
Or,as the godfather said,keep your friends close,and your enemies closer.
Get in,and get our fair share of whatever is going.Learn to grab.Like our european neighbours do.
Commissioners, Presidents, change to treaties etc carried by a nod & a wink, none allowed to vote, well not quite accurate they are allowed to vote if they agree & if not ie Dutch, Irish, French (thats right French) just ignore, & if British just ignore anyway.
The Europhiles case is weakened by these facts if it is so good, if its so wonderful why do people from different parts of Europe either vote against or are not offered a vote at all. I cannot see the strength in the Pro Europe argument unless it passes its ultimate test, if the people decide against so be it, if they would rather their independence instead of the conglomerate so be it, if they can live without interference from the ever burgeoning state so be it, now give them your arguments for & against then give them the vote, whats the matter Siliband/Bliar/McBrown lost your bottle?
I think that the IN/OUT referendum should be had and actually adopted as soon as possible.
Why bother with a referendum that will leave the EU in its current state if a NO wins?
Anti-EU advocates don't like the way it is now, right? So why vote to keep it that way?
No. Wait for the big one. It will settle it once and for all.
IN or OUT?
wasn't that always the question? Go on... you know you want to.
However the Common Market became the EC which then became the EU & on each occasion many more tiers of the unelected. We now find the bureaucrat seemingly taking the decisions then almost rubber stamped on presentation to the Euro parliament, this we did not vote for. I'm unsure why anyone Europhile or sceptic would be comfortable with the relentless & unchecked march toward a system that has burgeoned into a size that just steamrolls its way over every/all without any possibility to challenge. If the EU & its supporters want their system to work then they must carry the electorate with them & any other way almost guarantees a problematic future for the EU throughout the so called member states.
Personally I'd like to see all the member states call a referendum, not necessarily on an IN/OUT basis but just how far the people of the states wish to cede to a centralised system, I suspect the answer would be a very De Gaullesque Non!
Personally, I would like to see referendums on whether the Parliament or the Council should be the power house of EU decision-making
.
That would be tricky because if you want more democracy and more power for the democratically elected European Parliament, you have to erode the inter-state structure of the Council (less national sovereignty) and vice versa. EU leaders have been trying to find solutions to that conundrum for many years. Maybe they should give the citizens of europe that particular headache.
.
I would also like to see some real practical devaluation from the centralized Brussels regime but not along the traditional national borders. I think that rural areas of Ireland, Northern Spain, Portugal and Italy have more in common (in terms of problems, interests, social structure, cultural tradition etc) than they do with Rome, Madrid, Dublin or Lisbon.
I also don't understand why we're still voting for labour and lib dems and conservatives for the European elections when European parties are the ones actually represented in the EP. That's why you end up with your tory MEPs sharing a European Party with Nazis. Let us vote for the European Parties, not the national ones.
People have to understand that they cannot have it both ways. If you want more democracy, more accountability from the EU (as I do) you have to allow the citizens to have a direct political relationship with the EU. But this will further erode the illusion of national sovereignty which... frankly, nobody truly has any more, not the Americans, not even the Chinese, really... but much less than them any country with less than 100 million people.
I replied to your post in some detail but it just disconnected & all lost, can't seem to get it back so I'll leave it there.
It happens an awful lot with the Indy & I am in toch with Conspiracy Theories R Us Inc, address Twin Towers As Was.
It's at best bloody annoying which is the censured version of my thoughts, fortunately laptop/office/window still intact.
Britain needs a strong Europe and Europe needs a strong Britain, but the little-Englandism advocated by the Tories and part of the press in Britain costs Britain which punches under its weight. The "special relationship" gave an illusion of power when it was embodied by two close heads of states, as soon as it is not the case any more the real weight of Britain on the world scene just appears quite small and the PM struggles to gets an audience from the US president. Milliband made the right speech, a speech we should have been hearing a while ago.
The truth is that the Tories may be elected on this anti-EU platform, but if they want to have any impact on the world scene they will have to abandon it and betray their voters (fostering protests and UKIP and BNP votes). The value of an isolated Britain will be lower for the US. The isolation of the conservatives in Europe will prevent it to make any impact to shape the decisions made by the 27 countries on global questions like climate change, fight against terrorism and geopolitical relationships with Russia and China. The likely truth is that Cameron know that, but he proceeds one step at a time. First, get elected on a radical platform, then run a mainstream policy which is the only one in the interest for Britain. The consequence is a delay which will cost Britain and a deception which will foster extreme votes.
People consistently call the UK sceptic etc & yet the Dutch, French & Irish are the only ones you can accuse of this as they are the one's who voted NO. Any accusation of a UK sceptism should only be made after they are given the same opportunity as the above.
But the cherry picking of 'Coming last each time' is similar to that of refusing to acknowledge Dutch/French/Irish who gave a NO vote after which ignorance became bliss if not democratic.