The final fling

Tweet

I remember that when I was a child growing up in the 1950s, it was common talk among those of my parents’ generation, and older, that ‘the only good German is a dead German’.  In the immediate aftermath of a horrific war during which there can have been few families which did not suffer a direct loss, the attitude was understandable.  In order to keep people onside, there had been positive encouragement by government and war time leaders to see things in simple terms of goodies and baddies, and to learn to hate the ‘enemy’.  There were also in the 1950s and 1960s a whole host of war comics in circulation.  These invariably portrayed the ‘Jerries’ and the ‘Japs’ as fanatical and ruthless (as well as often cowardly and bunglingly incompetent) whilst soldiers of the UK and US were portrayed as brave, heroic men (invariably men) of principle standing up for righteousness and justice against the foe.  It is fairly easy to see how a generation or two could have become imbued with a hopelessly over-simplistic understanding of what has always been a complex relationship between European powers.

It was a strong current, and it didn’t stop at one or two generations – the England soccer fans who chanted ‘two world wars and a world cup’ whenever their team played against Germany were of a much younger generation, but were expressing a variant on the same raw emotion, albeit at least third hand by that point.  The understanding of European history which many in the UK possess, particularly those in older generations, is largely based on that oversimplification which sees ‘the Germans’ as hell-bent on world domination by whatever means possible, whilst the UK is that plucky little island state which stood up to them and defeated them.  Twice.  It’s a poor version of history, but as a mechanism for transmitting nationalistic sentiment from one generation to another, it has been remarkably effective, even if that effectiveness has declined over time, with the majority of younger people – a generation which has had the time and the money to travel and meet people from other countries – tending to judge the situation as it is today, not as their forefathers were led to believe that it was in the past.

That difference is reflected, of course, in the generational variance in attitudes towards the EU and Brexit.  The prism through which we view ‘Europe’ is either that of a place full of shifty and untrustworthy foreigners, out to dominate us at any chance they get, or that of a continent which has tried (and largely succeeded) to put the past behind it and come together in a peaceful and co-operative fashion from which all benefit, albeit in structures which are far from perfect.  I still see, in comments on this blog and elsewhere, references to the EU as the Fourth Reich, the latest means by which those dastardly Germans are attempting to dominate us.  And even if some more educated politicians (such as the Foreign Secretary) don’t put it in such crude terms, when they talk about rules being ‘imposed’ upon us by foreign powers they are essentially trying to tap into the same sentiment.

There should be no surprise when people like Johnson say that there can be no turning back from Brexit.  They know that this is probably the final fling for a particular view of Europe and the world; demographic changes are against them.  They need to cement their ‘victory’ as solidly as possible, and inculcate a new sense of jingoism and nationalism in the younger generation before their generation loses all its influence as a result of the inevitable process of natural attrition.  Their appeal for a return to the ‘greatness’ of the past, and their demand that we should all ‘get behind’ Brexit is, in its very essence, an appeal for the sort of blind loyalty to king and country which their generation took for granted, yet which they see crumbling all around them.  In a sense, I almost feel sorry for those whose world view is so strong and immutable that they cannot understand why others don’t share it as instinctively as they do, believing instead that it’s simply a matter of repeating the same message over and over again.

What they don’t get – and probably never will – is that the world has changed irrevocably under their feet.  People, and especially younger people, are no longer willing to be told what to think, and have mechanisms for disseminating alternative views which don’t depend on the media controlled by our ‘leaders’.  Brexit is a critical juncture in the movement from one view of the world to another.  The timing of the referendum was crucial to the outcome, and the ‘winners’ know that they can’t afford to concede another chance.  Every day that passes reduces the number of Leavers and increases the number of Remainers.  The only real question is whether demographic changes will be able to redirect the political processes before too much damage is done.  The future belongs to trust and co-operation, not the division and competition of the past.

Agreeing with the opposition 2

Tweet Following on from Friday’s post, the second story in Thursday’s Western Mail leading me to agree with a comment from an unusual quarter was this opinion piece by Stephen Crabb.  The devil is in the detail, however.

His core argument – the bit that I agree with – is that we should see major transport infrastructure investment not just in narrow terms about what Wales does or does not get, but as a wider question of vision for the future.  A proper transport infrastructure does not stop at, nor is it confined to, national borders or jurisdictions. 

It’s a pity, however, that he seems to see the issue merely in terms of which borders confine the vision.  He attacks insular politics in Wales but seems to want to replace a narrow focus on Wales with a narrow focus on the UK, seeing everything from a London-centric viewpoint.

The two biggest concerns that I have had about HS2 from the outset are: firstly that it’s been looked at as a stand-alone investment, rather than a first step (HS2 isn’t a network, as he described it, it’s a line – I only wish that it were indeed part of a network); and secondly, that using a different London terminus from that used by HS1 creates an artificial and unnecessary break in a European network.

Whilst Crabb and the UK parties – to whatever extent they still support the project – are looking solely at transport within the UK, the rest of continental Europe is busy building an integrated high speed network allowing direct connections across the continent.  Now that is truly a vision freed of Crabb’s insular politics (using insular in its more literal meaning).  And it recognises that building a line through one country can often benefit another; joint planning is key.

For a nationalist wanting to see Wales taking her place as a European nation, the link to Brussels is every bit as important as the link to London, which from this perspective is merely a stop along the route.  An important stop, sure, but just a stop all the same.

Being overtaken by events?

Tweet The Conservatives seem to be busy digging their European hole even deeper and wider as fast as they possibly can.  There is clearly within that party a deep-seated dislike of all things European.

It’s not often that I find myself agreeing with Norman Lamont, but on this occasion his assertion, although not quite in so many words, that ‘renegotiation’ was nothing more than a fig leaf to enable David Cameron to buy off his party in the short term and keep the UK within the European Union in the long term has a certain ring of truth to it. 

Whether the “renegotiation” ploy will work remains to be seen.  It clearly worked for Harold Wilson in 1975 but I’m not so sure that Cameron has as strong a grip on his party as Wilson had on his.  And Wilson’s Labour Party was badly enough split on the issue.

It’s difficult at times to work out exactly what it is about Europe that so many in the Conservative party have taken such a dislike to.  Lord Lawson attempted to spell out part of his objection at least.  He is quite clear that the European Union is attempting to obstruct the inalienable right of London based international capitalists to rip off the rest of the world and to destroy any country’s economy whenever they so choose.  Those weren’t quite the words he used, but it seemed to me what he was, in effect, saying.

Others have talked about freeing the UK from European bureaucracy in order to be able to compete more effectively.  Somehow it seems to me that the rest of the European Union’s members are unlikely to allow the UK to simply exempt itself from the rules which control them and then be allowed to gain economically through an unfair competitive advantage.  And the idea that the UK can compete (in the foreseeable future at least) with low-wage economies such as India and China, as has been suggested by at least one Conservative, seems to me equally fanciful.  Until such time as wages and living standards in those countries catch up with the West, it seems to me unlikely that competition is a realistic prospect.

It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that the real issue is more to do with the perceived electoral threat from UKIP; but that is itself a euphemism for an attempt to appeal to a certain group of voters who traditionally vote for the Conservative party.  There is a section of the electorate which is deeply hostile to Europe, Europeans, and indeed 'foreigners' in general (and I rather suspect, to those of a darker hue in particular) and the line being trodden by those attempting to pander to that section of the electorate without appearing to become openly xenophobic, or even racist, themselves is a fine one.

Attempted populism always carries a danger that events starts to overtake those who think they are in control of them; quite apart from the other dangers which arise from any attempt to appease that particular section of the electorate.  Cameron’s weakness is in danger of leading him into a position where, although I suspect this is contrary to his own instincts, he ends up leading the UK out of the European Union.  And even if he's unlikely to win the election which is such an important precondition, it seems that there are those in the Labour opposition who are being tempted to follow the same line.

The idea that the UK can return to some sort of imperial age independence may appeal to a particular section of voters, but it’s unlikely that most of us would benefit from it.  But, for all their talk of maintaining a rather different union closer to home, it looks as if the separatists are gaining the upper hand within the Conservative Party - and gaining ground in the Labour Party as well.

All Brits really

Tweet

One of the Western Mail’s more regular letter writers is Sir Eric Howells, a former Welsh chair of the Conservative Party before he went out of favour for highlighting the takeover of the local conservative association by the hunting fraternity.  He’s also a die-hard anti-devolutionist, and although something of a persona non grata with his former party, he’s probably closer to the membership’s views on many things than many of those in leadership roles today.

His latest missive (in yesterday’s Western Mail) contained two passages which struck me in particular.  In referring to the possibility of Scotland’s independence, he suggested that they should go, but that “within a few years they will be knocking on the door of number 10 asking to come back to the union”, and turning his attention to Ireland, said, “Why not offer them to come back into the Union”.

Lest anyone think that I’m just picking on Sir Eric here, there was also a counter-factual future-history article in the Sunday Times late last year written by Professor Niall Ferguson which suggested that, in the light of the Euro crisis and the conversion of the EU into the USE, Ireland might choose within the next ten years to re-unite with the UK on the basis of a slogan “Better Brits than Brussels”.

Now, of course, no-one can be certain what will happen in the future, and we can all enjoy a bit of speculation and a thought-provoking counter-factual.  But the idea that either Ireland or Scotland (if it chooses independence, which is far from certain as yet) will return to London begging to be let back in is too far-fetched to be credible.  I’m open to be proved wrong on this, but I don’t believe that there’s a single example in modern history – or perhaps even all history – in which a nation secedes from a state and then asks to rejoin it.

The fact that others can, even fleetingly, consider it remotely possible suggests a belief that there is a natural order of things under which we are all British really, and any deviation from that is just a temporary aberration.

It reminds me of the fact-finding trip I and around 10 other members of Plaid took to Brussels in 1974 or 1975, prior to the referendum on remaining in the EEC.  One evening, a Tory MEP came to sit with a group of us, on the basis that we were all Brits together in a foreign place.  The idea that we might, as Welsh people, see ourselves as having more in common with mainstream European politicians than with a Tory who happened to be from the UK, and that we might see Wales as being more akin to other submerged nations in Europe than to the ‘regions’ of England was something that he simply could not understand.

Talk of Scotland and Ireland ‘returning to the fold’ in due course, merely confirms that those of a certain perspective still don’t get it.  They probably never will.

Unionists and separatists

Tweet

Two short-hand terms for very different political outlooks, but I don’t really like either term.  Neither really conveys what it is that people are about.  The debate and vote in the UK parliament yesterday underlines the limitations of the terms as explanations of the political stance of the respective camps.

In that vote, the ‘unionists’ were those supporting the continued existence of the European Union, whilst the ‘separatists’ were those demanding an immediate vote on exit.  Yet, when it comes to the future of Wales and Scotland, yesterday’s UK ‘separatists’ tend to find themselves in the unionist camp, whilst those of us at whom the term ‘separatist’ is frequently hurled by way of insult tend to be supportive of the European Union (even if we don’t always agree on the form of that union).

Those who seem most keen to tell us that ‘we’re stronger together’ often seem to take quite the opposite view when it comes to that strange place which they call Europe, of which they think that the islands of Britain are somehow not quite a proper part.  The fact that their belief in the value of union and togetherness stops at the white cliffs fatally undermines the integrity of their argument about strength in unity when applied ‘domestically’.

The size of the rebellion yesterday should concern us; it suggests to me that the real level of hostility to the EU within the Conservative Party is much greater.  The tactics of the Government in trying to tell the rebels that they agree with them really, and that it’s just a question of timing, underline that change in mood.  I wasn’t overly impressed with Miliband’s contribution either, telling MPs that Britain could not afford to leave the EU at the moment.  That’s hardly a robust counter-argument.

We’re at a point in history where Scotland seems poised to rejoin the world as a free nation, and there is at least a chance that Wales would follow later; it would be perverse if the UK Government were to decide that this was the time to try and stop the world and get off.  The attitude of the 'separatists' is probably one of the consequences of the imperial past, but the failure to accept and understand that ‘the past’ is where that attitude belongs is one which can only lead to further decline.

I want to see Wales and Scotland taking their places at the European table.  And I hope that, when we get there, England will choose to be there as well.  But I’m less confident about that now than I used to be.

Shellfish and question times

Tweet Another question time session on Friday night, this time in Narberth, organised by Planed. It was the third to date, and there are currently another four in the diary between now and the expected election on 6th May.

I enjoy the sessions, and usually come away having discovered something else that I need to swat up on. In this latest session, it was European Union directives on shellfish, and the associated bureaucracy. Not something that anyone's ever asked me about before...

Dastardly plots

Tweet Back in the 1970s, I was out canvassing in Barry when one resident told me that he wouldn't vote for Plaid, because "that Gwynfor Evans has got a guerrilla army in the hills". I pointed out politely that Gwynfor was a fairly vociferous pacifist, not exactly the type to lead an army of any sort, to be told in no uncertain terms, "that's just a front to cover up what he's actually up to".

It's the sort of way in which people, when faced with a fact which doesn't support their own preconceived notions, simply turn that fact upside down in some way, so as not to disturb the equilibrium of their beliefs.

The incident came to mind last week when I came across a UKIP supporter. He told me that devolution was all a dastardly plot by the 'Common Market' to divide and conquer the UK. I pointed out that, actually, Plaid had been agitating for a Welsh Parliament for at least 80 years, well before anyone had ever thought about establishing the EU, only to be told "but no-one took it seriously until we joined the Common Market and 'they' started pushing it".

There's not much that one can say in response to that, is there?

Internalising problems

Tweet The difficulties being posed to the Euro by the serious economic woes of certain countries within the Eurozone has led to some people questioning whether a single currency is sustainable without the existence of a single state. At this stage, the issue may appear somewhat esoteric to many, but it is of more than passing interest to those of us who believe that we should enter the Euro at some point (whether as part of the UK or as an independent member state).

The question of whether a single interest rate (and therefore monetary policy) set centrally would suit all the different members was an issue from the outset, but as long as the economies of the member states were all growing, the problem didn't really manifest itself. In recession, the problem has become acute.

However, simply turning the EU into a single state wouldn't make the problem go away; it would merely internalise it. In some ways, the position of Wales within the UK mirrors the position of, say, Greece within the EU. Monetary policy and interest rates set in London for the whole UK frequently do not match the needs of Wales. It's not unconnected with the fact that even when the UK economy was growing rapidly, Wales was lagging behind.

Whilst that lag has been, and remains, a serious problem for Wales, it was never something that worried the international money markets, because the problem was internalised within a single state, the UK. It's easy to see, in consequence, why some are arguing that the EU should also internalise the problem by developing into a single state.

That might keep the money markets happy (basically, because they would then know that the larger countries, particularly Germany, would be underwriting the smaller countries such as Greece), but it would not resolve the underlying problem of a series of economies performing at different levels; it would merely hide the problem as far as those outside were concerned.

Internalisation may solve one problem, but it creates another, as Wales' experience shows, because it reduces the incentive to rectify that underlying inequality. I have never understood why so many people seem not only willing to accept Wales' underperformance, but to use it as a reason why Wales should not control her own destiny. It drives me in the opposite direction – to a position which says that the best way (and perhaps the only way) of tackling our underperformance is to take responsibility ourselves.

Countries such as Greece and Ireland are going through difficult and uncomfortable times - it's something which we should watch carefully, and learn from as well.

Performance politics

Tweet The closer they get to a scent of power, the more obvious it becomes that the Tories remain split from top to bottom over the UK's relationship with the European Union.

Most members of the Conservative Party are, at heart, deeply sceptical about the idea that political power should lie anywhere other than Westminster. From that perspective, sharing sovereignty at European level is much akin to devolving power to Wales - something to be avoided at all costs.

It's actually a valid political position to hold, even though not one I'd agree with. It's remarkably similar to the position of Ukip, in essence - and that's part of Cameron's problem. He knows that many of his party's members (and not a few of his elected MPs and MEPs) hold views which are very much in tune with Ukip; but he also knows that it's not a realistic position for a potential party of government to adopt.

The result is that he fudges. He is desperately looking for ways in which he can sound sufficiently anti-European to keep his own side happy without tying his hands too tightly in advance. He always knew that there was no chance of the Lisbon Treaty remaining unratified by the time he came to power; so a promise of a referendum was an easy promise to make, since it would never have to be fulfilled.

Now he's looking for another, similarly meaningless commitment, and he's come up with the idea of a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill – a bill which will change nothing very much, but sounds suitably tough.

For a minister in another European government to refer to the Tory position as 'autistic' was an unfortunate turn of phrase to say the least. Not only is it way out of order to use what is a serious condition as a term of abuse; it also serves to divert attention from the issue at hand.

It's also unfair at another level – Cameron is, I suspect, no more serious about this than he was about the referendum. It's just part of a tightrope act between now and the election. It's performance, not reality.

Ex-future-president Blair

Tweet It's surprised me for a while that there's been so much speculation about the idea of Blair becoming president of the EU, but it seems that, at last, reality is starting to dawn.

Surely, only in the UK can anyone have believed that the other countries of the EU would really want as their leader a person who has both consistently tried to keep his own member-state closer to the US than to our European partners and at the same time worked to keep his own member-state out of two of the most important projects for the EU, namely the Euro and the Schengen agreement.

It seemed pretty self-evident to me that the major players would want someone who had demonstrated a degree of commitment to their objectives, rather than someone who would be likely to use the position to undermine those objectives. Diplomatic niceties prevented them from making other than generally complimentary comments, but their comments weren't meant to be taken seriously.

Lies, Damned Lies, and UKIP statistics

Tweet In a letter to the Western Mail this week, Wales' UKIP MEP repeats the standard line that '75% of laws' come from 'Europe' as though it is a proven fact. Indeed, this figure seems to have been bandied around quite a lot, but it is far from being as much of a 'fact' as opponents of the EU suggest.

There's quite an interesting analysis of the claim here, in a piece which also looks at a range of other claims as to what the percentage actually is. The real answer depends on a number of factors, not the least of which are what we define as 'laws' and 'regulations', and whether we count laws and regulations made by devolved parliaments in the UK and elsewhere.

It also seems that all attempts to calculate the percentage are based on a straight count of 'items' of legislation, such that one long and complicated act of parliament is treated as being equivalent to 1 one-page regulation or directive (and, of course, vice versa). It's a pretty meaningless way of comparing.

The '75%' claim, in particular, seems to be based on a complete misinterpretation of a point made by an MEP, who was actually talking about the proportion of EU-wide law made by the European Parliament as opposed to the European Commission. It's a completely different thing, and was never intended to refer to the difference between European and National law.

I don't pretend that I've done anything like enough research to be able to quote an accurate figure, but it is probably somewhere in the range of 10% to 30% - a very long way short of the figures being quoted by the Euro-sceptics, or even the 'nearly 50%' quoted recently by David Cameron. Law affecting individuals is likely to be at the lowest end of the range, whilst law affecting companies and competition is likely to be at the higher end. And, in terms of the volume of law which actually applies to what we do on a day to day basis, it's probably lower again.

But then UKIP are also fond of claiming, time after time, that moves to establish a National Assembly only started after joining the EU, and are part of a ghastly European plot, as though 80 years of nationalist agitation from within Wales can just be written off completely. Can we believe anything at all that they say?