Converting to Europe

Some of you may have noticed, I tend towards the pro-Europe camp. This has not always been the case - a decade ago I was quite open minded, a fence sitter even. My conversion has not been greatly influenced by the pro-Europe lobby, but rather by the lack of quality argument coming from their opposition.

A large part of the problem with the Euro-sceptic argument is that it is mainly driven by a tabloid agenda. Anti-Europe is tied in with nationalism, xenophobia and racism. The campaign against the Euro is based on the Pound being "ours", the Euro "theirs". The Daily Mail campaigns to stop Brussels banning sexist jokes, and claims victory over ridiculous Brussels Bureaucrats when a close reading reveals that no one had any intention of doing any such thing. And everything is aimed at us. Never mind that an attempt to tackle sexist advertising will have far more effect in France and Italy, where the bare breast is used to sell anything and everything. The tabloids twist every story into "them against us", a re-run of '66 and Agincourt. Too many of us are buying into this agenda, not helped by the many broadsheet journalist who are following the tabloid lead.

Any political movement whose agenda is being set by the tabloids is one to be wary of, but not necessarily one to reject out of hand. Tabloid xenophobia is not the only argument against European integration, just the most vocal. The problem with the other arguments is their banality. Remove the nationalist agenda, and there is little left. Brussels forms a largely unaccountable, inefficient bureaucracy. Unlike Whitehall. Decisions are made which favour others over ourselves. From the viewpoint of the regions, this is nothing new. We pay more into the system than we receive. Supporting our less fortunate neighbours is the price of membership in a civilised society - and has formed the logic of payments to the UK regions for decades.

Set the Euro-sceptic concerns against the benefits of European integration. The enlarged market, the economic stability, the sheer convenience of being able to travel a thousand miles without border controls. Business leaders are, in general, desperate for closer ties. Small businesses see an end to import/export tariffs, large businesses see economies of scale. Both see new customers. Compare the Euro-sceptic carping with the pro-European economic arguments and ask yourself which seems more compelling.

Of course, there is another take on the economics of joining Europe whole-heartedly. There exists the real possibility that jobs will move abroad, that our markets will flood with cheap imports. This is the Euro-sceptic economic argument in a nutshell. Think for a moment. Look around. This is already happening. Our electrical goods come from Korea, our call centres are in India. Our rivals are not in Germany or Greece, but the Far East, South America. Failure to embrace the Euro provides us with no protection from this unwelcome consequence of free trade and globalisation; indeed it encourages it. By dropping the last, largely symbolic, barriers between us and Europe we risk little and could gain much.

It is not the economic arguments that are, to me, compelling, but the political. There are advantages to being part of a larger political union, as recent history shows. If we had been more fully engaged in Europe we wouldn't have been dragged into an illegal war that killed and wounded many of our soldiers to no advantage to ourselves and precious little (as yet) to the Iraqis. But applying a brake to our noble premier's lap dog tendencies is minor compared to the real advantage.

If you listen to the tabloid agenda, you'll see the enemy portrayed as the other nations states of the union. France, Germany, even Greece. These are, supposedly, our enemies. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there is no nation state with the power to threaten us significantly. Even that one surviving super-power, America, has only minor influence compared to the true threat to the world today - multi-nationals. The perception of America as a leading world power is largely based on the number of multi-nationals based there, but that is a situation that will continue only as long as America provides its current supportive environment for such companies. The world's largest companies are not constrained by borders, nor by loyalty to countries. Any attempt to control or constrain them, and their operation moves elsewhere.

The power of the multi-nationals is such that no small country, such as our own, can hope to compete. Only America has any measure of influence - its market of 250 million of the world's richest people a powerful negotiating tool. By engaging fully together, Europe can become another. The individual nation state is doomed, our economic policies can and will be increasingly dictated by the needs of the colossal corporation. Who else benefits from the current policies on globalisation and free trade? Only the superstate can hope to survive, and that applies not just in Europe. An integrated Europe can serve as the model for similar powerblocks elsewhere - Africa, south-east Asia, South America. These super-national institutions are not just desirable, but necessary. We need the EU, we need the UN. We need to strengthen them, even at the cost of our supposed sovereignty. And we can only do that by engaging fully in them.

The EU is by no means perfect. Too many decisions are taken centrally that should be left to locals. Accountability is too low. Too much effort is spent on the irrelevancies of integration. But our own country is far from perfect, with our monarchy and our unwritten, change-at-the-whim-of-a-prime-minister constitution. Every criticism of Brussels can be equally fairly aimed at Westminster. The costs of EU membership are small, exaggerated in our minds only by tabloid xenophobia. The cost of not belonging is potentially enormous. The great failed experiment of communism has shown the fate of nations attempting to control their own economies in the face of the multi-nationals. We cannot stand alone, but must face the future as part of a union of equals.

Graham Robinson. 9th July 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.