23 June 2016
Time for change
Whether we stay or leave change is inevitable
by Lynda Goetz
It is probably fair to say that, although the referendum debate is one of the most important in a generation for our country (and Europe), most people have got to the point of feeling that ‘enough is enough’ and that it is time that this was all over so that we can get on with all the other important things which have been put on the back burner.
At the eleventh hour, it is almost certainly not last night’s ‘Great Debate’ on BBC1 which is going to sway voters. In the final analysis, that was little more than a repetition of all the slogans, insults and slightly dodgy facts which have been traded by both sides since the outset. Still, there are three last minute developments which may make a small difference and, since we are all led to believe that it is small differences to the voting intentions of the ‘undecided’ which will determine the result, these three things may tip the balance crucially. Rather regretfully, I consider that they will tip things in favour of Remain.
The first is the tragic death of Jo Cox M.P. Although it is clear she was killed by a loner with mental issues, the fact that the man arrested, Thomas Mair, has identified himself with ‘Freedom for Britain’ and had known associations with white supremacist groups, makes the murder, as her husband, Brendan Cox, has pointed out, a politically motivated act. He claims, quite reasonably, that “She was a politician and she had very strong political views and I believe she was killed because of those views. I think she died because of them and she would want to stand up for those in death as much as in life.” This perfectly reasonable comment, when taken in conjunction with the charge levelled last night by Sadiq Khan against Boris and Leave of masterminding ‘Project Hate’, could well have the effect of making some, who may have thought of voting Leave, reconsider. After all, who wants to be associated with hatred and hate crimes? Who wants to be on the same side as white supremacists and blatant racists? The fact that this is absolutely not the Vote Leave position will not actually matter. The association will be enough.
The second is the video, which was put out last Friday and which has gone viral, of Professor Michael Dougan of Liverpool University Law School, giving his very knowledgeable and well-informed take on why we should stay in the EU. Professor Dougan is a professor of EU law and has given advice as an expert to Parliamentary Select Committees and government. He has made the point that, although both sides are guilty of distorting the facts, he considers the Leave campaign to have resorted to dishonesty on ‘an industrial scale’. He compared the situation to ‘an evolutionary biologist listening to a bunch of Creationists tell the public that Creation theory is right and evolution is wrong’. He argues that the claims about sovereignty, so dear to the Leave side, are in fact arguments about power and that ‘sovereignty’ in this debate is being used as shorthand for power and influence. He points out that the EU is not a sovereign entity and that where, for example, our courts bow to the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights, it is because our Parliament has legislated for this to be the case. He explains that the EU is not something which ‘happens to us’, but something we are a part of and where most (my italics) decisions are reached by consensus in the Council of Ministers. For evidence he refers his audience to ‘The Balance of Competencies Review’ carried out by the government between 2012 and 2014, which was a comprehensive review of how the EU affected the UK. Apparently (and I cannot claim to have read even a page of it), this massive review, the largest carried out by our Civil Service in its history, and culminating in the production of 32 volumes, concluded that ‘every major stakeholder across every major sector of our economy and society does not see a problem with our EU membership. On the contrary they consider that it brings real added value to national policy-making.’ (He concedes the fact that there are individual elements which are contestable given your own point of view; e.g the Working Time Directive.)
Having analysed the current situation, Professor Dougan then addresses what he sees as the four main challenges for the UK should we end up with a vote to leave. He argues that anyone claiming to know how a Leave vote will actually work out is deluded, but attempts to address these problems. In brief they are: 1) a comprehensive review of the UK legal system will be required because of the way it has become entwined with EU law over the last 40 years; 2) the Constitution of the UK (relationships with Scotland and Ireland) will come under threat with potentially far-reaching internal consequences; 3) it will take 2 years to sort out the ‘divorce’ severance with the EU, before we even get onto creating new relationships; 4) he states that it is ‘beyond doubt’ that leaving the EU will cause trade agreements with other countries to terminate as they have been negotiated on the basis that we are members of the EU.
It is a great pity that we have not had more people like Professor Dougan involved in the debates and interviews on radio and television. At this late stage he makes a very persuasive case, certainly to those who are dithering or those who have never known anything other than the UK as part of the EU. He points out, quite fairly, that the whole subject is very complex (otherwise ‘why would they need people like me who have dedicated their careers to this subject’), but like the politicians on the Remain side, he does not show us a vision of Britain’s future within the EU. He has merely stated the current situation. That is not going to stay as it is. A vote for the status quo is not an option. A vote for Remain is not a vote for ‘no change’. Change, rather like death and taxes, is one of the few certainties in life. The EU has evolved from the European Coal and Steel Community of 6 countries in post-war Europe to the juggernaut of 28 countries which it is now. Like juggernauts and super tankers, the EU is not built for nippy turns. It is going to continue slowly making its way in the direction in which it is already heading. That direction is towards a European super state, because that is effectively what its stated objective is. Although it appears that Herman von Rompuy’s ‘roadmap’ (2012) has been scaled down by the Five Presidents’ Report published last year, there is still the desire for a degree of convergence that is not wanted by the UK, nor indeed by the electorates of a number of EU countries.
This brings us to the third factor which may influence the vote tomorrow and that is the intervention of two European ministers; Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German finance minister and the Austrian Foreign Minister, Sebastien Kurz. Schaeuble was addressing a conference in Berlin and expressed sympathy with those in Britain who had expressed a desire to leave. He is reported to have said “The Britons who have expressed scepticism in the European Union have also to a certain extent expressed our concerns. Perhaps we didn’t understand quite correctly, and it’s led to an excessive level of self-regard in the institutions and apparatuses in Brussels and Luxembourg. Perhaps we went too far and to some extent lost touch with our citizens”. He added, “Even if Britain stays in the EU we won’t simply be able to go on as before”. Sebastien Kurz has warned that the EU is not controlling its migration policy and had put people-smugglers in charge.
The fact that there appears to be some sympathy and recognition of problems within the EU may lead the undecided to the view that perhaps if we stay In and ‘keep our place at the table’ we might now get a sympathetic hearing. Donald Tusk, the European Council President, is also saying that the EU must take a ‘long, hard look’ at itself and listen to the British ‘warning signal’. Perhaps there is some hope that in spite of the fact that David Cameron came away from his negotiations with far less than he would have liked or expected, leading many to the view that the EU is simply not going to change, the ‘scare’ of what looks like being an extremely close vote tomorrow may just possibly make the EU examine very carefully what the electorates of the member states actually want and start considering how to deliver?
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the Shaw Sheet
