Sunday 18 April 2010

Policy Comparison 6 - Europe.


Europe has not played a large part in the election campaign so far, despite the best efforts of UKIP and the BNP to push it up the agenda. The tories are naturally keen to avoid the topic as it remains an issue the party is hopelessly divided over and potentially the point where any tory government would split in internal wrangling. Whilst Labour and the Lib-Dems probably have reservations on how the issue would play with the electorate and thus don't want to get involved in what could be a vote losing debate. Thus the issue could be seen as the second elephant in the room.

In the spirit of openness and honesty, my own stance is pro-Europe whilst recognising that a lot of the policies and institutions need some reform, I think that Europe has been on benefit to the UK in terms of things like human rights legislation and that things like environmental issues are best tackled on a Europe-wide and global level. That's my view, not everyone will agree with it, so feel free to offer your alternatives. Meanwhile, here's what the parties are saying:


LABOUR

  • This Party will work with other European partners and promote economic reform to make Europe more competitive and to secure more job opportunities for British people.
  • We will press other European countries to match and carry forward our commitment, as part of an EU wide agreement, to move from 20% to 30% reductions in emissions by 2020 compared to 1990.
  • We will press for further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to ensure farming becomes more competitive, sustainable and innovative.
  • This Party will promote further enlargement of the EU, including support for the entry of Turkey and Croatia as long as relevant conditions are met.
  • We will work with EU partners to achieve a global trade deal to cut tariffs and help lift millions out of poverty.
There's a lot to like here - the increased reductions in emissions, using CAP to make farming more sustainable and the final point about using trade to help the world's poorer countries. Most of all I like the commitment to working with the EU to address these issues. It's one of the few areas where I really feel like I trust Brown to deliver as I think he has a proven track record of fighting for these things.


LIB-DEMS
  • Push for a radical transformation of the CAP by transferring 30% of agricultural spending into rural development.
  • This party welcomes the Lisbon treaty, which streamlines the EU and makes it more effective. If there is to be a referendum it should be on continued membership of the EU, and this Party would campaign strongly for Britain to be at the heart of Europe.
  • Promote greater transparency and accountability in budget-setting in the EU, including fines for former member states who mismanage EU budgets.
  • Support economic reform and the completion of the Single Market, including the market for services; speed up the implementation of legislation and support light-touch regulation.
  • Encourage more effective use of the subsidiarity principle.
  • Promote a greater role for European Parliament scrutiny.
  • Ensure better contact between EU institutions and member states' national parliaments.
Whilst this is undoubtedly pro-European and reformist, its comes across a bit as vagueness dressed up in jargon. The mover towards greater transparency and accountability must be welcomed, but disappointingly nothing on the environment (although EU is mentioned in their environmental policy) and nothing to really get excited by.



CONSERVATIVES

  • This Party believes Britain's interests are best served by membership of a European Union that is an association of its Member States. This party would never allow Britain to slide into a federal Europe.
  • Introduce a new United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.
  • As the Lisbon Treaty contains a mechanism to abolish vetoes and transfer power without the need for a new Treaty, this Party would change the law so that any use of a so-called ratchet clause would require full approval by Parliament.
  • A full opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) so that the CFR, which for instance would interfere with our trade union legislation, cannot be made to apply in Britain.
  • Greater protection against EU encroachment into the UK's Criminal Justice System - against EU judges extending their control over our Criminal Justice System, and to ensure that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.
  • Restoration of national control over social and employment legislation. For instance, we seek guarantees over the application of the Working Time Directive in our public services, such as the fire service and the NHS.
Hmmm ... they start by saying that they're pro-European and then everything else is about pulling back from Europe. I must admit to ignorance on some of the finer points of what they are arguing, but as a policy it seems more designed to placate the Euro-sceptics in their own party and fend off UKIP than actually address Europe issues. But maybe that's just me being cynical. It is all about constitutional issues and nothing on the advantages of Europe or how they would seek to positively engage with the EU.


UKIP

  • This Party believes that the UK should withdraw from the European Union and that our membership should be replaced with a genuine free trade agreement similar to those enjoyed by other non-EU nations such as Switzerland, Norway and Mexico.
  • The only people who should decide who can come to live, work and settle in Britain should be the British people themselves. We can only do this outside of the EU political union.
  • Leaving the EU will allow us to regain control [of our agricultural and fisheries policies and of our fishing grounds] and put British interests ahead of European interests.
  • This Party is committed to a free, democratic, independent Britain which is governed not by the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels but by our own people through our elected Parliament at Westminster..
  • The European Union is designed to meet the challenges of the 1950s, not those of the 21st Century. In the global economy in which we now live, we should not be focussing on the insular regional trading blocs, but opening our arms to trade with the rest of the world, starting with the Commonwealth
Well, its pretty much as you would expect. Withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal. Its hard to comment on a policy that comes from a viewpoint that so fundamentally differs from my own. The inclusion of Mexico in the first point seems a wee bit out of date, especially as it is extremely questionable whether Mexico has benefitted at all from free trade arrangements with the US, which seem to have more opened Mexico up to exploitation than brought in economic rewards. Fisheries, I believe, need to be addressed on a Europe wide basis to stop over-fishing. I accept that the Common Fisheries Policy fails to do this adequately at the moment and needs reform, but that will only work from inside the EU. And the last point seems very contradictory - slamming the EU for being outdated and then promoting the Commonwealth that came out of the remnants of the British Empire and still very much revolves around the Queen? At least they don't propose joing NAFTA.


BNP
  • We will campaign for Britain to withdraw from the EU.
  • We should have British control over British borders so as to stop unlimited and uncontrolled immigration and reduce crime and terrorism.
  • We must keep the Pound and control over our own economy.
  • We oppose the UK's payment to the EU.
  • Britain must withdraw from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
  • Britain must withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
  • We should restore the use of Britain's traditional weights and measures.
  • The British parliament and British courts should be independent of any foreign body.
Lets play how many times we can fit the word British into one policy. If you accept the first point all the rest is completely irrelevant. The thing about weights and measures seems to me to be left over from about 20 years ago when things were first changed - does anybody really still care about this issue. See above for thoughts on fsheries. Generally the Euro-sceptics seem very good at saying we must stop Europe interfering or controlling this, without actually saying how that control or interference is happening. I smell a scare tactic.



GREENS
  • We are internationalists; we want to foster solidarity between peoples, and we believe co-operation builds peace, as it has done in Europe. Our geography means that we are part of Europe. We believe in Europe, but not in a European super-state.
  • Our vision for Europe seeks to replace the unsustainable economics of free trade and growth with the alternative of local self-reliance.
  • We want to foster co-operation on issues of common interest, not establish international institutions for their own sake.
  • Accordingly we are critical of many of the objectives built into the EU treaties, of the EU institutions and how they work, and of many particular EU policies.
  • We believe many things done and decided in Europe might better be done by member states or by regions or localities.
  • There are essential matters - safeguarding basic rights, peace and security achieved through mutual understanding, environmental protection, the spread of culture and ideas, regulation of the financial system - where we agree that EU action is appropriate.
Less of a policy than an attempt to articulate a position. There's a lot that appeals to me - encourage more local self-reliance, and the last point on how they would seek to use the EU. I would like to have a bit more detail on what this would mean in practice.

Summary

Some very contrasting ideas here. If I had to rate them, I'd go for:

1.
Labour - very clear and positive policy and one area where I feel Brown can be trusted.
2.
Green - more principals and not enough practicality, but has something going for it.
3.
Lib-Dems - the opposite of the Greens, all practicalities and not enough principal. A bit bland, but not disagreeable
4.
Tories - trying to sit on a fence and almost falling off
5.
UKIP - clear position, but not clear as to why.
6. BNP

Next time I'll be taking a look at health.

5 comments:

rupert said...

ok, i'll wade in, and i know we have different opinions on this one. on this issue, i am with the tories - this is probably the only issue! they are trying to find a balancing act, but i think it is unfair and untrue to say they are sitting on the fence.

they are, if i understand correctly, trying to hold on to involvement in europe (hence not the withdrawing of bnp and ukip). there are some advantages of being part of something bigger. trade agreements aren't sufficient. as you say, tackling something like the environment together would be a good thing. some common (and reworked) policy of fishing. etc. there are other things that need to be worked out together (eg regulation of the financial system) although i would want to retain autonomy for member states in legislation. being part of the eu is a good thing.

however, my concern about europe is how much is decided by unknown (and it seems unelected) figures, that hugely influences our lives. europe is vast, with so many different cultures and countries. i just don't think you can have common policies that work for all the member states. why shouldn't countries be allowed to choose what weights and measures? why does that need to be dictated to us? it might be a dead issue as you say, but it is symptomatic of a controlling government, that seems so remote and removed from ordinary people. even more so than westminster, and that is saying something!

on more important issues, why can't westminster determine the human rights of individuals? or the working terms and conditions for their own citizens? if we don't like what they produce, we can get rid of them at the next election. they are accountable to us, the electorate, for how they govern. i see no reason why that should be or is best done by brussels.

i am in favor of government being closer to the people. yes we need coalitions or partnerships with larger groups. so to be part of eu is a good thing. but the power needs to stay with the uk. logically, that should mean i am in favour in scottish independance. but i am not, as snp plans to take scotland further into europe. it seems a contradiction - they want more autonomy, and then give it away to europe rather than westminster. but i am in favour of devolved powers. we hold the scottish government accountable for health and transport and such like. and they know what is going on in edinburgh, and the remote areas of the highlands. because they live here, and travel around. they are much closer to the electorate.

i don't think the tories are as divided as you say. sure there are some who disagree. ken clarke being a prime example. but with the rise of ukip, there are now alternatives for the hard eurosceptics.

i want to give the tories credit for not being dualistic in approach. it is more complicated to understand, and maybe doesn't go down so well with the electorate, but why does it need to black or white? it isn't fence sitting, but a nuanced approach.

i actually like the green approach too, but would love a lot more detail on what they mean by that. as i read it, it may not be that far the tories approach, but without the specifics of what the means.

i find it interesting that you put the greens above lib dems, when (as i read it) they are almost advocating opposite positions. the lisbon treaty (supported by the lib dems) advocates an essentially federal super-state that the greens oppose.

this probably isn't an issue at this election, as no one seems to be advocating in this parliament further involvement in europe than we are at present (for example adopting the euro).

ok - long essay over now!

Tony said...

Hi Rupert,

Thanks for the comments. You make some good points. My main problem with the tories policy on Europe is that i have yet to see anything about how they would engage positively with Europe even on the issues that you agree there is a place for greater involvement from the EU. The two policies that I favoured were the ones that to me talked most of positive engagement on the issues that I care about.

I suspect that we are actually broadly in agreement about environmental issues with regard to Europe. With regard to the Lisbon treaty, I'm fairly neutral. I will confess to not having read it and having no plans to (life's too short). If there were to be a referendum, I would certainly look into it further. I remain unconvinced that it represents the loss of sovereignty that it is made out to be. The arguments on both sides seem to be lacking in detail in how it would undermine sovereignty or how it would improve things. I am suspicious however of arguments which tend towards presented things as a unified Europe working towards a federal state and trying to trick Britain into it. That's just not the way it's seen actually within those countries who are at the heart if it.

As far as Human Rights go, which is an area that I passionately care about. To be honest, I think its irrelevant where the legislation comes from, as long as its there. And yes, the UK could have introduced its own legislation but had consistently failed to do so and I welcome the fact that we know have human rights legislation. I think it becomes a much more important issue if you think about the further expansion of the EU - especially the case of Turkey. Turkey wants to be part of the EU, but has a very poor human rights record. In order to join it will have to improve, thus the EU brings greater pressure to bear than any country could do unilaterally.

Tony said...

Rupert, just wanted to add a further thought on sovereignty, that I believe for all the softening of Cameron's approach that there is a far more serious ceding of sovereignty contained in tory philosophy - that of surrendering sovereignty to the markets. See Ken Clarke's comments today as part of the tory fear-mongering about the prospects of a hung parliament: "If ... the markets think that we can't tackle our debt and deficit problems then the IMF will have to do it for us,". I think there's a real danger in a way of looking at things which says the markets decide, as if the market were some kind of independant objective arbiter, rather than forces that are controlled by those with money whose primary objective is to make more money for themselves. I know this view is much wider spread than the tories, but I think that there is far bigger contradiction in objecting to loss of sovereignty to Europe, where there is at least some democratic accountability, whilst seeming to have already surrendered sovereignty to the markets? I mean did you elect the IMF?

Rupert Ward said...

Tony - you may be right about the tories not proposing positive engagement. i am not sure i know enough. but i still think they are raising some good points about sovereignty.

while i take your point about the IMF and markets, i think you are raising a bigger issue here: the amount our politicians are influenced by people with money, power and influence, rather than considering those with no voice. they seem to pander to business, markets, the rich, unions etc. and those with money seem to be able to buy peerages or access to our politicians. i suspect both labour and tories are just as guilty and lib dems will be as soon as people see them worth bothering to the same with!

Despite all this, i would still our parliament made decisions about our economy, rather than brussels - even if it is unduly influenced by markets and the imf...

Tony said...

I agree that the issue about the markets is a wider issue and definitely affects over parties, but I think its still relevant to a discussion on sovereignty because i do find the conservative position a bit inconsistent. There was a very good column in Scotland On Sunday about this a couple of months ago, but haven't been able to find it online to send you the link.

I think for me the markets/big business have actually become more powerful than individual governments so some kind of international co-operation like the EU is needed to re-exert some control, but can't see the tories ever agreeing to that