Saturday, January 02, 2016
The 'hard-headed case' to remain in the European Union
With a referendum on our continued membership of the European Union looming and expected this year, the Financial Times sets out the 'hard-headed case' as to why our membership should continue:
This newspaper has consistently made the case for staying in. Not from any romantic attachment to European federalism but from the hard-headed calculation that Britain’s prosperity and security are advanced by pooling resources and, sometimes, sovereignty with its European partners.
The UK’s global interests depend on the preservation of global rules. In an era when order is too often making way for disorder, the defence of the values that Britain shares with the rest of the EU — the rule of law, democracy and human dignity — is vital to the task.
The case for membership, in other words, is grounded in enlightened self-interest: recognition that the UK can best leverage its power and guard against potential weaknesses by being part of the collective endeavour of its own continent. No one should doubt Britain’s innate talents and strengths; nor should they underestimate the challenges of a multipolar world.
The EU has abundant flaws. The financial crisis exposed a half-completed economic union, and the tide of arriving refugees has shown the weaknesses of Schengen. The Financial Times backs a Union that promotes a pragmatic, variable geometry of co-operation among groups of states alongside the shared competences embedded in the single market, international trade deals, climate talks and such like.
The imperfections, however, must be set against the alternatives. Would a UK outside the EU cut loose completely, sacrificing access to the single market and eschewing shared policies against terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime? Or would it seek a deal such as that enjoyed by Norway, signing up to the rules while forgoing a voice in the rulemaking?
The studied silence of the Euro-sceptics on the options speaks volumes about the weakness of their case for Brexit. The British will always be irritated by Brussels but a confident Britain will understand that its interests lie in working within the EU.
All of that is absolutely right, but there are other reasons why we need to remain part of the European Union as well. Our identity as a nation is intricately interwined with our continental neighbours.
Despite the best efforts of UKIP and their ilk we have become a multi-cultural, outward-looking society, benefiting not just from economic interaction with other European nations but also cultural and social interaction as well. That is where we stand as a country at the start of the twenty-first century.
A 'no' vote would be a step back. It would create the possibility that we might become less tolerant, more introspective and iliberal. This referendum is not just about whether we stay in the European Union or not, the stakes are much higher.
Those who want us to leave are seeking to turn back the clock. They want to put up barriers between communities and create an atmosphere of suspicion, intolerance and hate. That sort of poison cannot be allowed to inculcate our society.
Hard-headed economic arguments are all very well but they have so far failed to inspire and mobilise people on the staying-in side. The campaign to remain within the EU must address issues of identity and the nature of our society if we are to win it. And that campaign must begin in earnest now.
This newspaper has consistently made the case for staying in. Not from any romantic attachment to European federalism but from the hard-headed calculation that Britain’s prosperity and security are advanced by pooling resources and, sometimes, sovereignty with its European partners.
The UK’s global interests depend on the preservation of global rules. In an era when order is too often making way for disorder, the defence of the values that Britain shares with the rest of the EU — the rule of law, democracy and human dignity — is vital to the task.
The case for membership, in other words, is grounded in enlightened self-interest: recognition that the UK can best leverage its power and guard against potential weaknesses by being part of the collective endeavour of its own continent. No one should doubt Britain’s innate talents and strengths; nor should they underestimate the challenges of a multipolar world.
The EU has abundant flaws. The financial crisis exposed a half-completed economic union, and the tide of arriving refugees has shown the weaknesses of Schengen. The Financial Times backs a Union that promotes a pragmatic, variable geometry of co-operation among groups of states alongside the shared competences embedded in the single market, international trade deals, climate talks and such like.
The imperfections, however, must be set against the alternatives. Would a UK outside the EU cut loose completely, sacrificing access to the single market and eschewing shared policies against terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime? Or would it seek a deal such as that enjoyed by Norway, signing up to the rules while forgoing a voice in the rulemaking?
The studied silence of the Euro-sceptics on the options speaks volumes about the weakness of their case for Brexit. The British will always be irritated by Brussels but a confident Britain will understand that its interests lie in working within the EU.
All of that is absolutely right, but there are other reasons why we need to remain part of the European Union as well. Our identity as a nation is intricately interwined with our continental neighbours.
Despite the best efforts of UKIP and their ilk we have become a multi-cultural, outward-looking society, benefiting not just from economic interaction with other European nations but also cultural and social interaction as well. That is where we stand as a country at the start of the twenty-first century.
A 'no' vote would be a step back. It would create the possibility that we might become less tolerant, more introspective and iliberal. This referendum is not just about whether we stay in the European Union or not, the stakes are much higher.
Those who want us to leave are seeking to turn back the clock. They want to put up barriers between communities and create an atmosphere of suspicion, intolerance and hate. That sort of poison cannot be allowed to inculcate our society.
Hard-headed economic arguments are all very well but they have so far failed to inspire and mobilise people on the staying-in side. The campaign to remain within the EU must address issues of identity and the nature of our society if we are to win it. And that campaign must begin in earnest now.
Comments:
<< Home
If the FT is so keen on making the case for remaining in the EU it is a great pity their artcile doesn't seem to be available without signing up for some kind of subscription!!!!!
# posted by 
: 8:34 AM
: 8:34 AM
Dear Mr Black, I have the following criticisms to make:
1. "values that Britain shares with the rest of the EU — the rule of law, democracy and human dignity — is vital to the task." - Implicit here is the notion that the UK needs the EU to preserve these three "global laws." This is incorrect because EU membership does not determine whether democracy, rule of law and human dignity are in place within a country or not. An example to prove this assertion is Iceland. It is therefore not "vital to the task" and cannot be described as such.
2. "the UK can best leverage its power and guard against potential weaknesses by being part of the collective endeavour of its own continent." You have failed to define what these "potential weaknesses" are, the fact is - the biggest weaknesses this country faces cannot be aided by a political union. The risk of economic deflation, peak oil and cultural collapse cannot be aided in any way by the European Union, as the disadvantages to this weakness lie out of its control, so this point is invalid.
3. "The Financial Times backs a Union that promotes a pragmatic, variable geometry of co-operation among groups of states alongside the shared competences embedded in the single market, international trade deals, climate talks and such like." The article fails to outline a single way in which the European Union has contributed to the ailing of the economic crisis and the migrant crisis through the proposed solutions: this European Union has done nothing to resolve these issues and there is no evidence to suggest that it has done.
4. "The studied silence of the Euro-sceptics on the options speaks volumes about the weakness of their case for Brexit." The Euro-sceptics are not silent on this issue, they have just not had equal representation in the media for their points of view.
5. "Our identity as a nation is intricately interwined with our continental neighbours." History suggests the complete opposite: our parliamentary system (FPTP, adversarial parliaments, constitutional monarchy etc.) all suggest that we have a completely different approach to our politics in this country and therefore have an entirely different identity to our European neighbours.
6. "we have become a multi-cultural, outward-looking society, benefiting not just from economic interaction with other European nations but also cultural and social interaction as well. " We have not benefited economically at all. There have been no signs to suggest that the economy has improved as a result of the European Union; in fact, our economy has declined to a point where it is irredeemable. (1.5 Trillion pound debt). Furthermore, social tension between immigrants and the domestic population continues to increase on a daily basis, not because of "UKIP" but because it is impossible to impose a multiplicity of different cultures on an indigenous people without their permission: there is no historical example that exists to prove this wrong.
7. "A 'no' vote would be a step back. It would create the possibility that we might become less tolerant, more introspective and iliberal." This comment is entirely subjective and lacks any evidence or proof.
8. "Those who want us to leave are seeking to turn back the clock. They want to put up barriers between communities and create an atmosphere of suspicion, intolerance and hate. That sort of poison cannot be allowed to inculcate our society." This comment is a classic example of the "strawman" logical fallacy, by characterizing those who have a different opinion to yourself has supporting an "atmosphere of suspicion, intolerance and hate" shows a complete lack of respect to the opinions of others. Furthermore, people with whom you disagree are not poison, they are simply people with a different point of view to yourself.
1. "values that Britain shares with the rest of the EU — the rule of law, democracy and human dignity — is vital to the task." - Implicit here is the notion that the UK needs the EU to preserve these three "global laws." This is incorrect because EU membership does not determine whether democracy, rule of law and human dignity are in place within a country or not. An example to prove this assertion is Iceland. It is therefore not "vital to the task" and cannot be described as such.
2. "the UK can best leverage its power and guard against potential weaknesses by being part of the collective endeavour of its own continent." You have failed to define what these "potential weaknesses" are, the fact is - the biggest weaknesses this country faces cannot be aided by a political union. The risk of economic deflation, peak oil and cultural collapse cannot be aided in any way by the European Union, as the disadvantages to this weakness lie out of its control, so this point is invalid.
3. "The Financial Times backs a Union that promotes a pragmatic, variable geometry of co-operation among groups of states alongside the shared competences embedded in the single market, international trade deals, climate talks and such like." The article fails to outline a single way in which the European Union has contributed to the ailing of the economic crisis and the migrant crisis through the proposed solutions: this European Union has done nothing to resolve these issues and there is no evidence to suggest that it has done.
4. "The studied silence of the Euro-sceptics on the options speaks volumes about the weakness of their case for Brexit." The Euro-sceptics are not silent on this issue, they have just not had equal representation in the media for their points of view.
5. "Our identity as a nation is intricately interwined with our continental neighbours." History suggests the complete opposite: our parliamentary system (FPTP, adversarial parliaments, constitutional monarchy etc.) all suggest that we have a completely different approach to our politics in this country and therefore have an entirely different identity to our European neighbours.
6. "we have become a multi-cultural, outward-looking society, benefiting not just from economic interaction with other European nations but also cultural and social interaction as well. " We have not benefited economically at all. There have been no signs to suggest that the economy has improved as a result of the European Union; in fact, our economy has declined to a point where it is irredeemable. (1.5 Trillion pound debt). Furthermore, social tension between immigrants and the domestic population continues to increase on a daily basis, not because of "UKIP" but because it is impossible to impose a multiplicity of different cultures on an indigenous people without their permission: there is no historical example that exists to prove this wrong.
7. "A 'no' vote would be a step back. It would create the possibility that we might become less tolerant, more introspective and iliberal." This comment is entirely subjective and lacks any evidence or proof.
8. "Those who want us to leave are seeking to turn back the clock. They want to put up barriers between communities and create an atmosphere of suspicion, intolerance and hate. That sort of poison cannot be allowed to inculcate our society." This comment is a classic example of the "strawman" logical fallacy, by characterizing those who have a different opinion to yourself has supporting an "atmosphere of suspicion, intolerance and hate" shows a complete lack of respect to the opinions of others. Furthermore, people with whom you disagree are not poison, they are simply people with a different point of view to yourself.
In reply:
1. The rule of law, democracy and human dignity are best protected by membership of the EU. In a world of existential threats such as terrorism working with others to share intelligence and to combat those threats within a common framework is the best way to secure our way of life. Leaving the EU will isolate us and make us more vulnerable to those threats.
2. The risk of economic deflation, peak oil and cultural collapse is best combated within the world's biggest free trade area in which the free movement of goods and labour helps to secure jobs and prosperity.
3. The article actually talks about the single market, international trade deals and climate change talks as concrete examples of how the EU is helping us to deal with the economic crisis, whilst a common approach to migrants is the best way to help them whilst also ensuring our own security. Remember there are as many Briton working in Europe as their are Europeans working in Britain
4. The point is that the Euro-sceptics are not putting forward alternative solutions and neither have you.
5. Speaking as an historian it is clear to me that our nations have a long history of interaction and common cause with continental Europe. It is also true for example, that the German democratic system was designed by the British.
6. Our economy benefits tremendously from being in Europe, not just through trade and being part of a free trade partnership but also from companies who have set up here to be part of that free trade area. Brexit puts all that at risk. Any decline in our economy is nothing to do with our membership of the European Union but is due to the failure of successive British Governments to manage structural changes and to invest in infrastructure.
6a. I disagree about your analysis that social tension between immigrants and the domestic population is increasing daily. Britain is made up of many multi-cultural communities where people of many cultures happily co-exist together. The tensions you describe are generated by the propaganda of UKIP and their ilk.
7. It may be subjective but it is entirely accurate.
8. I am not saying that people who disagree with me are poison, that is the sort of strawman argument you are accusing me of. I am saying that the atmosphere of suspicion, intolerance and hate being promoted by some anti-Europeans is poisonous. The fact is that there are many arguing for Brexit on that basis and I include UKIP in that.
Post a Comment
1. The rule of law, democracy and human dignity are best protected by membership of the EU. In a world of existential threats such as terrorism working with others to share intelligence and to combat those threats within a common framework is the best way to secure our way of life. Leaving the EU will isolate us and make us more vulnerable to those threats.
2. The risk of economic deflation, peak oil and cultural collapse is best combated within the world's biggest free trade area in which the free movement of goods and labour helps to secure jobs and prosperity.
3. The article actually talks about the single market, international trade deals and climate change talks as concrete examples of how the EU is helping us to deal with the economic crisis, whilst a common approach to migrants is the best way to help them whilst also ensuring our own security. Remember there are as many Briton working in Europe as their are Europeans working in Britain
4. The point is that the Euro-sceptics are not putting forward alternative solutions and neither have you.
5. Speaking as an historian it is clear to me that our nations have a long history of interaction and common cause with continental Europe. It is also true for example, that the German democratic system was designed by the British.
6. Our economy benefits tremendously from being in Europe, not just through trade and being part of a free trade partnership but also from companies who have set up here to be part of that free trade area. Brexit puts all that at risk. Any decline in our economy is nothing to do with our membership of the European Union but is due to the failure of successive British Governments to manage structural changes and to invest in infrastructure.
6a. I disagree about your analysis that social tension between immigrants and the domestic population is increasing daily. Britain is made up of many multi-cultural communities where people of many cultures happily co-exist together. The tensions you describe are generated by the propaganda of UKIP and their ilk.
7. It may be subjective but it is entirely accurate.
8. I am not saying that people who disagree with me are poison, that is the sort of strawman argument you are accusing me of. I am saying that the atmosphere of suspicion, intolerance and hate being promoted by some anti-Europeans is poisonous. The fact is that there are many arguing for Brexit on that basis and I include UKIP in that.
<< Home
