Recent political news have devoted countless column inches to the perceived rise in UKIP. Following this, it appears that the Conservative Party is in the process of imploding over Europe. For old fogies like me, this has very much a deja vu feeling as the Conservatives imploded over Europe in the last months of the Major Government, before Blair swept to power in 1997.
To date, the political reaction from all the mainstream political parties has been to blather on about how they need to reconnect with people and debunk UKIP's policies. If they believe this, they are in a desperate state of denial or do not want to publicly admit to knowing what is really going on. Some politicians are dropping pretty big hints that they know why UKIP are doing well, but they are staying 'on message' and talking about "engaging with people". I fear this approach is just kicking the problem to 2015 when a general election will make this issue someone else's problem. Sums up Government policy really!
So let's start with some basic political realities.
UKIP are a fringe party. This means that in terms of MPs and councillors, they are in the same category as the loony parties and the BNP/EDL or whatever they are called now. UKIP's policies are not as extreme as those parties, but it is not much more credible either. The voters know this. Debunking UKIP's more nutty policies is a waste of time because the voter is not interested in hearing it.
Also I do not consider the EU and immigration to be genuine voter issues. I am not saying the average voter is not concerned. What I am saying is that these topics are 'manufactured news'. They matter to the voter because the newspapers and politicians make it matter in order to promote their political viewpoints. In reality, ordinary people care about the economy, the NHS and social issues whether that be about social welfare, housing or crime.
So why are UKIP successful? They have no meaningful policies on those key issues.
UKIP are doing well because unlike all the mainstream parties, they are relatively honest both ideologically and in the way they approach politics. They have not made any promises that they have had to break and they are not tainted by the MP expenses scandal. Voters are turning to UKIP not because of their policies, but because the average voter is starting to hate the mainstream politician for their lies, broken promises and rampant corruption. This is a frightening concept for the big parties as it could signal a destruction in the political status quo that has been broadly prevalent in British politics for the last 70 years. In short, it threatens their cosy arrangement of pretending to represent the British electorate and pretending to offer a political choice at the ballot box.
I find Farage to be an enjoyable political figure to watch, but he preaches a very old and dangerous message. In the past that message would have been to blame the jews/blacks/gays/other religions/other nations for the problems being experienced by the population at large. Unfortunately such tricks remain as popular now as they did then, only the topic now is Europe and immigration. I have yet to hear a single coherent argument or economic case for how the UK would be better off pissing into the European tent from outside rather than going inside that tent and settling things the old fashioned way! The funny part is that the Germans are deeply frustrated because they see the UK as a potentially valuable ally for implementing much needed reform of the EU. Instead they just get lots of incoherent shouting and mixed messages. A bit like 1939 then...
In short, if the coalition government thinks that focussing on the EU and immigration is going to help them, they are in for a nasty shock at the next election. As was the case in 1997, the electorate were desperate to get rid of a corrupt political elite. Blair and Labour capitalised on this desire then, but with the Labour brand now firmly linked with that corruption that the electorate hated so much, what will happen in 2015? I fear that the current trend towards populist electioneering (as practised by UKIP) is only set to increase and so the political battleground will be fought over issues relating to the EU, immigration and the economy. The electorate will hate it, but will they hate it enough to do something unpredictable?
My prediction is not in 2015, but by 2020 things will get serious and probably messy.
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Saturday, 26 January 2013
European Games
First off, a declaration. I am very much pro the EU, but not uncritically so. Even its most ardent supporters openly acknowledge that things are not perfect and a lot more needs to be done. For me, however, the EU is at its best when it protects EU citizens from their national governments. Without the EU, many bad laws would have been enacted by the British Government, particularly those that impacted on freedoms or our protections, particularly from large corporations. Examples such as the 90 days detention, the BT Phorm trials and the ongoing anti-competitive investigations by the EU into Microsoft, Apple, Intel and Google are prominent in my mind. So for all its faults, particularly in the way it operates and spends money, there are a lot of good things to say about what the EU does.
And so I now look at Cameron's speech on Europe which is still generating significant press coverage. My verdict is that there are some good principles in there. The Germans and the French do want the UK to get more involved, to push for beneficial change to the EU and to counter the perceived dominance of those two countries on most European issues. The UK is seen as a major player with a lot that it can bring to the table. However, I can only think that Cameron's strategy in pushing for this change is driven by political pressures, not by any realistic analysis of how best to go about bringing change and thus improving the EU. The European way of doing business is very much about obtaining consensus. Turning up from the beginning with a threat and a list of demands does not get things off to a good start!
My view is very much that Cameron (or any PM) should have simply signalled that the UK want to propose a number of changes which the UK feels is needed for itself, but would also benefit the EU as a whole. This could have been reinforced by a statement that the EU was becoming democratically tenuous in the UK (and other countries) and so it is critical that the UK government is able to demonstrate that the EU remains relevant and beneficial to the lives of UK voters. This is the sort of position that European leaders can understand and agree with. It is both a promise to be reasonable and a threat to challenge the democratic legitimacy of the EU if it cannot reform.
As for the issue of a referendum, Cameron is being as hypocritical as he accuses Alex Salmond and the SNP of being over the issue of Scottish independence. If you are going to have a seismic referendum, you should set the date to be as short as decently possible only allowing enough time for a proper debate and not such a long period that it creates a whole load of planning and investment uncertainties. I am not saying that there should not be a referendum, but either it should be called quickly or Cameron should have left it as an unspoken threat for the EU to ponder over. That way, the UK has a strong hand in its negotiations, EU leaders can hardly be motivated to avoid the threat that a referendum brings if it is an inevitability. I fear, that the political pressure has over-ruled any common sense on this matter.
I know from my own work that being a leading member of the EU brings significant benefits to the UK and I am going to share one example that illustrates this point. About five years ago I was dealing with a problem where working with the US was being problematic due to the way the Americans implemented their laws when co-operating with foreign governments. This issue was causing huge delays to work and creating a whole host of problems such as legal liabilities and delays to the UK. The UK had spent years trying to solve this problem, but to no avail as the Americans were not willing to change their position. My boss and I therefore approached our counterparts in the other five biggest countries within the EU to ask if they were having the same problems. Lo and behold they all replied that they were and so we set up several meetings to discuss it and to hammer out a strategy. We then invited the Americans to meet all six of us to discuss this problem which they willingly did. As a result, the Americans realised that they had a problem that needed fixing and so they went away and did so. For them, this was the ideal international co-operative scenario - the UK led the big European nations to clearly articulate the problem. Once the Americans proposed a solution, it could be agreed by the Europeans as a whole thus saving them from having to repeat the work for other countries and everyone went away happy.
Now of course, I can also give several examples of where working within the EU has not been so successful. But the example above illustrates why so many nations, both and and out of Europe want the UK to remain a leading member. It also shows how the UK is able to make itself more influential than if it tried to solve all these problems on its own. This is influence that political blustering and a UK only attitude cannot buy, it would be ludicrous to claim that giving it up would not have significant consequences. Is it worth what we pay the EU? That is a much harder question to answer, but what is clear is that the situation is far from black and white and the UK would be unlikely to be able to use the money saved to be able to protect its interests and influence world events as effectively as it does now.
And so I now look at Cameron's speech on Europe which is still generating significant press coverage. My verdict is that there are some good principles in there. The Germans and the French do want the UK to get more involved, to push for beneficial change to the EU and to counter the perceived dominance of those two countries on most European issues. The UK is seen as a major player with a lot that it can bring to the table. However, I can only think that Cameron's strategy in pushing for this change is driven by political pressures, not by any realistic analysis of how best to go about bringing change and thus improving the EU. The European way of doing business is very much about obtaining consensus. Turning up from the beginning with a threat and a list of demands does not get things off to a good start!
My view is very much that Cameron (or any PM) should have simply signalled that the UK want to propose a number of changes which the UK feels is needed for itself, but would also benefit the EU as a whole. This could have been reinforced by a statement that the EU was becoming democratically tenuous in the UK (and other countries) and so it is critical that the UK government is able to demonstrate that the EU remains relevant and beneficial to the lives of UK voters. This is the sort of position that European leaders can understand and agree with. It is both a promise to be reasonable and a threat to challenge the democratic legitimacy of the EU if it cannot reform.
As for the issue of a referendum, Cameron is being as hypocritical as he accuses Alex Salmond and the SNP of being over the issue of Scottish independence. If you are going to have a seismic referendum, you should set the date to be as short as decently possible only allowing enough time for a proper debate and not such a long period that it creates a whole load of planning and investment uncertainties. I am not saying that there should not be a referendum, but either it should be called quickly or Cameron should have left it as an unspoken threat for the EU to ponder over. That way, the UK has a strong hand in its negotiations, EU leaders can hardly be motivated to avoid the threat that a referendum brings if it is an inevitability. I fear, that the political pressure has over-ruled any common sense on this matter.
I know from my own work that being a leading member of the EU brings significant benefits to the UK and I am going to share one example that illustrates this point. About five years ago I was dealing with a problem where working with the US was being problematic due to the way the Americans implemented their laws when co-operating with foreign governments. This issue was causing huge delays to work and creating a whole host of problems such as legal liabilities and delays to the UK. The UK had spent years trying to solve this problem, but to no avail as the Americans were not willing to change their position. My boss and I therefore approached our counterparts in the other five biggest countries within the EU to ask if they were having the same problems. Lo and behold they all replied that they were and so we set up several meetings to discuss it and to hammer out a strategy. We then invited the Americans to meet all six of us to discuss this problem which they willingly did. As a result, the Americans realised that they had a problem that needed fixing and so they went away and did so. For them, this was the ideal international co-operative scenario - the UK led the big European nations to clearly articulate the problem. Once the Americans proposed a solution, it could be agreed by the Europeans as a whole thus saving them from having to repeat the work for other countries and everyone went away happy.
Now of course, I can also give several examples of where working within the EU has not been so successful. But the example above illustrates why so many nations, both and and out of Europe want the UK to remain a leading member. It also shows how the UK is able to make itself more influential than if it tried to solve all these problems on its own. This is influence that political blustering and a UK only attitude cannot buy, it would be ludicrous to claim that giving it up would not have significant consequences. Is it worth what we pay the EU? That is a much harder question to answer, but what is clear is that the situation is far from black and white and the UK would be unlikely to be able to use the money saved to be able to protect its interests and influence world events as effectively as it does now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)