You are here: Home » Comment »

Labour remains pragmatically pro-European

November 15, 2011 12:01 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Jon Worth (in his post yesterday) misrepresents the position of the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander. Perhaps if Jon were to read Douglas’s recent article and speech more carefully, he would come to different conclusions.

Jon’s central criticism is that Douglas is not pushing for Britain’s membership of the Euro. It is safe to say that there are many pro-Europeans on the centre left in Britain who are against adopting the single currency.

Douglas is emphatic that in opposition, as in government, Labour remains pragmatically pro-European. However, that does not mean that we are defenders of the status quo, because the EU clearly needs significant reform.

In the light of the Eurozone crisis, the European Union will change irrevocably. It is not in our national interest for Europe to be split into two clubs, with the UK being left in the slow lane.

Ed Miliband has rightly criticised the government for glorying in a two speed Europe.  Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been asleep at the wheel for months. And even when they did wake up to the seriousness of the Eurozone crisis, they failed to constructively engage with our European partners. Anyone who has ever been involved in European negotiations knows that shouting from the sidelines is never effective.

We are clear that our priority for the UK is not to repatriate powers, as advocated by David Cameron and his party. As social democrats, we have consistently opposed the repatriation of EU social policy. Last week, I denounced Open Europe’s contention that rolling back minimum rights for workers would lead to job creation as economic nonsense.

In the post Eurozone crisis European Union, the UK should argue for reform – putting jobs and growth at the centre of the EU’s agenda rather than simply focusing on austerity. This also requires the single market, the largest borderless market in the world, to work more effectively.

Finally, instead of obsessing about the reach of Brussels, the Conservatives should be rising to the challenge of the rise of Beijing. It is imperative that Europe starts to look outwards to emerging economies. Douglas underlines that the EU amplifies Britain’s voice in negotiating the terms of trade with the huge economies of China and India. This will be crucial to Britain’s long term prosperity.

Emma Reynolds is the Shadow Europe Minister

Related posts:

  1. Barroso’s State of the European Union: a challenge for Labour
  2. Douglas Alexander’s ‘Tory light’ EU policy is not right for Labour
  3. Having a strong Labour team in the European Parliament matters for Britain
  4. Europe Day: time to put social justice back at the heart of European politics
  5. A new majority in the European Parliament?
  • http://twitter.com/jonworth Jon Worth

    This is extraordinary! In one line, towards the end of my piece, I argue that membership of the Euro should not be ruled out by Labour. I do not even say Labour should campaign for it or argue for it. It’s quite a leap from that to assert that my “central criticism is that Douglas is not pushing for Britain’s membership of the Euro”.

    The essential problem – which I argue in my piece and continue to argue – is that Labour has no frame it can use to discuss the European Union, and this response from Emma also fails in that regard. Just ‘we’re not as nasty as the Tories and we do not want to repatriate’ is not enough as a line – it’s arguing on the Tories’ and the eurosceptics’ turf.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Collins/100000704165371 Ken Collins

      The problem is that pragmatism is essentially reactive in nature and it is that approach that has beset nearly all British policy on Europe ie. wait until somebody else makes a proposal,initially oppose it on some alleged principle and then when others move, negotiate from a weak position. Then complain , of course, that something has been “forced” on us and orchestrate the usual chorus from some sections of the press. That`s the way to do it `cos that`s the way we`ve always done it!

  • http://twitter.com/jonworth Jon Worth

    I equally don’t agree with all the content, but David Miliband gets closer to the sort of thing Labour should be defending in the FT yesterday. See http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2011/11/14/dont-split-europe-make-it-stronger/#axzz1diWbPVrS 

  • Awefwe

    To be honest Mr Worth, anyone arguing that the Euro should ‘not be ruled out forever’ is a moron who hasn’t got a clue about basic economics. 

  • Anonymous

    I don’t read Jon’s piece as being pro-Euro-entry at anything other than the “don’t rule it out” level. That’s sensible politics, even in the eurosceptic fog of the UK political debate, because ruling it out means saying “we will never on philosophical grounds, join the Euro even if at some undefined point in the future it is our national, political and economic interest to do so” – that’s not a rational view.

    Leaving that aside, I don’t think that this new position cuts it because, as Jon says, you can’t handle this fast-moving situation except on the level of values.

    Take your line: “In the light of the Eurozone crisis, the European Union will change irrevocably.”

    Agreed. 

    Now the next line “It is not in our national interest for Europe to be split into two clubs, with the UK being left in the slow lane.” 

    OK, what does pragmatic pro-Europeanism tell us about what Labour will do in this context? The eurozone is going to change irrevocably – take a big step towards union (or break apart). Does “pragmatism” mean that we support fiscal union, go along with it, sign up to the treaty change, maybe even say we might one day join the Euro, because eurozone collapse would hurt UK growth? Or does it mean that we drag our heels, try to prevent it happening, even at the risk of the single currency collapsing, because preventing a two-speed Europe is more important to us?

    I have, honestly, no idea at all. Pragmatic pro-Europeanism is like “what counts is what works”, the sort of thing a cautious governing party might say, not a party that has the space of opposition to test things out, take the big positions, and set out where it stands.

    And that’s the problem with the Labour Europe policy. It’s empty and tactical, just at the time when it needs to be full and strategic. “Do the right thing”, “mind how you go”, “now go out there and enjoy yourselves”.

  • Anonymous

    “The task of our generation now is to complete the economic and currency union in Europe and, step by step, create a political union,”

    Now that the German Chancellor has – again, for the hard of hearing – reiterated the core purpose of the EU, what impact will that have on Labour’s EU policy? Make no mistake, this is the goal and we have been told this many, many times. This is the political reality that all parties have to deal with and to pretend otherwise is simply foolish.

    “It is not in our national interest for Europe to be split into two clubs..”
    We do not have the capability, ability, power or influence to stop this if France and Germany want it and pick up support from others who need their largesse. And it would not make any difference what party the government was from.

    “…with the UK being left in the slow lane.”

    Define slow lane. Does it mean ‘not part of the clearly and continually articulated EU single / federal state’? Or something else?

    We should ignore the erosion of our own economic and financial independence on the basis of the Chinese boogeyman? Hardly a strong argument for ignoring what damage may be done to the UK and the entire EU project (laudable as much of it may be in theory) by the EU itself. Loath as the EU may be to turn to self examination again, it is clearly necessary in some areas on some levels.

    • jaime taurosangastre candelas

      You didn’t ask me, but my definition of “slow lane” is the slow lane to losing our nationality and becoming merely the north western part of some amorphous Euro soup.  That’s a better place to be for me than in the fast lane heading towards that political destination, although I want to pull off at the next exit.

      • Anonymous

        I think you’re right. Fast and slow lane have the same destination – Europa – and the same drivers – France and Germany.  

      • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

        No, you want to pull off into the crash barrier.

        • Anonymous

          What’s the crash barrier? What does that mean?

        • Hugh

          Crash barrier? More like the hard shoulder on the M25 in extreme fog when it’s pelting down with rain.

          In a Ford Escort. With one tail light gone. And you’ve left your mobile at home.

  • Dave Piggott

    You are against the repatriation of powers to the UK. But you favour significant EU reform, can you eleborate on what specific reforms you think would be beneficial?

    Do you currently believe we are being pushed to the sidelines by the Conservatives EU policy? What specifically about what the tories are doing would you change?

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    “We are clear that our priority for the UK is not to repatriate powers….”

    That’s a problem that Labour has at a national electoral level.  National sovereignty is important to many millions.  Without being over-dramatic, any party that is publicly relaxed about not repatriating powers that many think should not have been handed over, or worse happy to hand further powers to foreign entities is always going to be at an electoral disadvantage in this particular matter.  It doesn’t matter that the tories may in power act much as Labour does, the public perception is that the tories stand up for Britain, and Labour doesn’t.

    • derek

      Hmmm? don’t you mean the tories stand up for 30% of the electorate, while the other 70% have no problem with being Internationalist in outlook.

    • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

       ”Repatriating powers” – getting the ability to treat workers EVEN WORSE back!

      You really hate every worker in this country, and this country as a whole. The 1% benefit from your mania.

      • Anonymous

        Pointless hyperbole.

      • Jaime T

        Thank you for categorising me with such gentleness and precision.

        The reality may be different.  I’m a worker, I’m married to a worker, our children will be workers.  Our colleagues and friends are workers.  I’m not aware that I’m manic, in any of the 17 sub-categories of mania.  You will no doubt know best though, so I’d better take your advice.

    • Anonymous

      “National sovereignty is important to many millions”

      I think you’ll find that you’re mistaken, at least in the context of European issues. Repatriating powers is a long way from being the great popular cause of the moment – 3% of the population say that the EU is one of the most important issues facing the country, which translates as about a million and a half voters.

      • Hugh

        Since UKIP is polling 7% currently, I’d say you’re under-estimating it. It’s also fairly obvious that you don’t need to believe the EU is one of the most important issues to stick believe national sovereignty is important.

        • jaime taurosangastre candelas

          Correct.  I would not be surprised if quite a few others would not necessarily ever vote for UKIP, but do feel uneasy about how far Europe has gone away from the trading arrangement that it used to be.

      • Anonymous

        If the issue was so low it would not continually come up again and again and again, with MPs merrily defying a 3 line whip over an EU referendum.

        People will talk about police, NHS, defence, education as big issues and vote on these big ticket issues but there is clearly unease with the EU and with national sovereignty. Continuing to pretend it is not an issue worth dealing with is what has led to the current state of play with the UK’s attitude to the EU.

        It may not be a pollsters ‘one of the most important issues’ but it refuses to die and comes back again and again and again, which suggests it is a background issue undealt with.

        • Anonymous

          I’d say it’s whipped up by a vociferous minority, and right wing tabloid factions. Petitions etc can represented a highly motivated self selected group of people; not necessarily the mainstream.

          That’s not to say most of us aren’t worried about the wider economic picture; but it’s not just about the European issue.

          For example, it’s also about global banking practices or the power of large co orporate businesses.

          Also, political agendas at play; often reflected via vested interests and newspapers, media etc.

          So everything has to be taken in context.

          J

          • Anonymous

            Also, national identity and sovereignity etc is not automatically
            at odds with being pro European.

            The French, for example are a proud nation who protect their interests abroad, and home grown business etc; but I get the impression most would favour European integration.

            It is not a threat, but enhances co operation between neighbors, and connects people more closely; as opposed to an
            “island” mentality or self protectionism.

            It’s a question of attitude and outlook I believe. 

            I think there is a lot of cynicism and fear mongering out there;
            also vested interests.

            Great opportunities and chance for influence could be missed if we distanced ourselves further.

            Also- business links and connections- a major source of revenue.

            J

          • Peter Barnard

            @ Jaime, Hazico, Hugh, Anthony Z,
             
            On national sovereignty :
             
            yours truly does not think, on any day of the week, an iota about “national sovereignty.” Nor do I think about “erosion (or repatriation) of powers.” These phrases are rhetoric, no more and no less.
             
            But let the master (Winston Spencer Churchill) speak, as he did at the first Congress of Europe at The Hague on 7 May, 1948 :
             
            “We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and conceal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to us all, which is the inheritance of Europe.”
             
            Political unity, he went on, must ‘inevitably’ accompany economic and military collaboration, a process, as he explained, that did not necessarily damage a nation.
             
            “It is said with truth that this involves some sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty …. it is also possible and not less agreeable to regard it as the gradual assumption, by all nations concerned, of that larger sovereignty which can also protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics, and their national traditions.”
             
            (my thanks are due to Hugo Young’s “This Blessed Plot” which should be required reading for anyone making comment on “the UK and Europe”).
             
            Of course, the United Kingdom would be outside the curtailing of national sovereignties that Churchill contemplated ….

          • Anonymous

            Gosh, thanks Peter- pure eloquence combined with common sense….

            On a different tack, but slightly related;
            I saw an amazing rendition of a play called
            “The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui”
            by Brecht, last week in Notts.

            It’s an allegory of the rise of Nazism, written in 1941. 

            In this case, the set was downtown Chicago, with “Ui” as the lead gangster.

            Above the stage was one of those neon strips that one sees in stock markets; only in this case- it was
            announcing time, place and context; bringing historical events back to the contemporary
            context; eg economies collapsing- and the social impact of poverty and unemployment etc.

            I wish the experience could have been shared more widely; one of the most powerful dramatizations I’ve seen; but a weird juxtaposition of black comedy and tragedy.

            These are serious times, and I hope lessons can be learnt from the past!

            We are a very different Europe now though; but dangers still lurk.

            Jo

          • Peter Barnard

            Thanks, Hazico, although being an engineer, I’m not much in favour of allegories … spades and spades an’ all that!

            When you think about the calibre of politicians these days, they don’t measure up one inch to the post-war people, both Labour and Conservative, but then, we really don’t have the challenges that thos epeople faced.

            You are absolutely right – we must learn and retain the lessons from the past.

          • derek

            @Peter Barnard, I guess those who measure by the 1000th are still nostalgic and like to shoot elephant TV, Harold didn’t get involved in Vietnam but I guess for some there’s a hole new war out there just waiting to be triggered. 

          • Anonymous

            Peter, I think the purpose of an allegory can be to explore issues creatively, and challenge perception; widen thinking.
            Can also just be entertaining.

            For example, the economic and social conditions that precipitated
            the rise of facism in Europe can be mirrored through other contexts, eg where extreme poverty has existed, as in the ’30′s USA, or perhaps UK?

            I’m guessing this play may have been revived because of the context of global recession/behaviour of money markets; and social impact- eg in parts of Europe?

            It was menacing; but also playful- as if to say:”it’s closer than you think;” and no room for complacency.

            Those words you quoted from Churchill were extremely moving.

            I agree with what you say about comparison of public figures and politicians compared to some of the towering figures of the past…but that may also be a reflection of the culture we are now living in.
            Also- management speak;
            rise of professionalization of roles etc; people not often coming into politics from grounded/extensive working experiences.So it’s become a bit of a bubble and a law unto itself.

            Also- I think great things can come of people when under pressure; look at the war spirit; or how people behave during major disasters- pulling together.

            But I’m also concerned about general sense of apathy out there; people seem more interested in reality TV and celebrities than what is going on around them, and what if anything can be done about it.

            The marches and protests in the past year, however,
            have been inspiring, and give some hope for any sense of democratic participation, and general impression of “oomph.”

            I just think there is so much potential for putting things in place now, whilst the opportunity is still there, and we have good working relationships with our neighbors and allies.

            On another note Peter- I think it’s people like you, with so much life and working experience, and specific skills and knowledge- that are desperately needed in the world of politics.

            I don’t think there should be any barriers to office, if individuals have the will or ability to make a significant contribution to public life.

            Age, gender, class, working background, education, etc.

            I don’t think there has ever been a greater time needed for collaboration of experience and knowledge in the context of what appears to be insurmountable problems.

            Jo

          • Hugh

            He was probably drunk at the time. No, people don’t day to day think very much about national sovereignty, but they don’t day to day think very much about how the NHS is organised. Yet when people are asked to vote in European elections UKIP is the second most popular choice.

          • derek

            @Hugh, with 16.5% of the vote? Southern comfort indeed?

          • Peter Barnard

            @ Hugh,@facebook-100000704165371:disqus 

            “He was probably drunk at the time.”

            That’s an unworthy remark, Hugh. The words that I quoted were spoken to the Congress of Europe (800 delegates with 140 British participants).

            Churchill was greatly concerned about the future of Europe, and how not to repeat  the horrors of  1914-1918, 1939-1945. His concern about how to create peace in Europe was recorded as early as 1930, when he wrote and argued the case for a United States of Europe.

          • Hugh

            I don’t think it was unworthy. It  was a joke. What is clear, is that his desires and others’ whose support for the EU was forged in the war, isn’t shared by the majority of European citizens. And yet many of those driving the project have continued regardless. It’s at that point where I begin to have serious problems with the whole endeavour. 

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            @ Peter B,

            I very happy to cede some ground on this, but back in 1982 when those Argentinians invaded British land and had to be ejected, do you really think that a Portuguese Prime Minister of the United States of Europe would have sent a task force?

            I’m very happy that Chile was able to help the British in that conflict.  There really were proper celebrations in our house when victory was declared.  It’s the only time I have ever seen my father drunk and singing, my mother was crying with delight (she really, really loathes the Argentinians, and is forthright about saying so), my sister allowed to stay up and go with me to the local square to set off fireworks at midnight.  A happy day, but not one that we’d ever see again under a United States of Europe.

          • Peter Barnard

            @ Jaime,@facebook-100000704165371:disqus 

            ” …do you really think that a Portuguese Prime Minister of the United States of Europe would have sent a task force?”

            I don’t think that speculation built on a hypothetical can ever be capable of “proof” of anything.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            OK Peter, not going to enter into a logic battle.  But 50:50, gut instinct, do you think such a person would have done a Maggie, against all military advice?  If Portuguese – my example plucked from the air – seems too loaded, pick for yourself a nationality from any of the other 26 EU members.  A Danish or Greek PM, for example.

            My gut instinct says no.

            I got an email today from my brother in law who is now retired from the Royal Marines, but who was a young soldier in the campaign with 42 Battalion Royal Marines.  It was a link to the trailer of a new film about Margaret Thatcher starring Meryl Streep.  All he said in the email was “balls of iron”, which I suspect to such Euro front-runners as Mr van Rompuy are nothing more than 3 syllables in his next Haiku, certainly not a political attribute worth owning.

          • derek

            I once sat in a room listening to Chris Keeble, talk about future conflicts, he just happened to believe that future wars would be fought in the middle east, this was around about 1986, as for the Falklands, Keeble just said war was a dirty messy thing that had two laws, kill or be killed.

          • Peter Barnard

            @ Jaime,@facebook-100000704165371:disqus 

            Since no such person existed (the hypothetical President of the US of Europe),  this is silly.

            The question you should be asking is, “How the heck did we get into such a situation in the first place?” (Answer – government/foreign policy/military cock-up) and another consideration is that Private Eye cartoon of a Falklands memorial statue with the Iron Lady on a pedestal, and the  inscription, “They died to save her face.”

            And the final consideration – we did not “do it alone” : we could not have done it without US non-military assistance – flight refuelling, satellite-gathered information and intelligence.

            Still, the sorry episode was well received by the by Jingo brigade.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            @ Peter,

            I know we didn’t do it alone.  Apart from the US assistance you mention, there was also significant – and risky – covert assistance provided by Chile, in the form of radar monitoring of airfields from the Andean border, re-registering of planes from the UK RAF to Chile to fly some supply and photography  missions while painted as Chilean air force planes, citizenship and passports for the UK RAF pilots in case they were shot down, and support for some British Navy helicopters that flew some soldiers into southern Argentina, but did not have enough fuel to fly back to their ships.  There was also a very tense stand-off afterwards between Chile and Argentina, but that dissipated after Galtieri’s regime fell.

            I have no love at all for Pinochet, given everything else he did, but on this issue he knew what the right thing to do was.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Sorry Peter, coming back to this.  You say that the real question is how did we get into such a situation, which is a good question.  However, I’m more focussed on how we might be able to react if we find ourselves in such a situation again, and particularly if we are part of a much larger and more integrated Europe.

            I don’t think any of the three clowns currently heading Labour, the tories or Lib Dems have got any backbone, so maybe a 20% chance of one of them taking the same decision Margaret Thatcher took.  The outlook across Europe doesn’t seem much braver either, and as no European leader has any emotional investment in British nationality or moral values, the chances of them doing anything about it seem even less than 20%.

            Sorry, sticking with my point on this one.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            Good reason for having it, then. The Falklands was simply a way of Thatcher gaining cheap popularity – and now we have to pay out goodness knows how much money for land which has nothing to do with us, in reality.

            Viva las Malvinas!

          • Anonymous

            Argentina has had very little involvement with the Falklands historically (less than 13 years, most of that on paper only compred to hundreds of years of British involvement) and dropped her claim for decades before reviving it and then inventing new claims for new territory in the 20th century.

            It is Argentina that uses the issue for cheap propaganda and cheap popularity.

            Please don’t just believe the historically illiterate, propaganda ridden and biased view that ‘Malvinas son Argentinas’. That view is inherently imperialist, anti-democratic and ignorant of reality and the facts.  

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            “Viva las Malvinas!”

            Given all that this country has done for you, the money it has invested in you, the social liberties you enjoy which are not available to you in Argentina, the 255 soldiers and sailors who died to retake the Falklands, I hope you can sleep well in your bed at night after making such a comment.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Oh, by the way, “Falklands” is plural so your conjugation is rubbish, and the use of the verb is habitually confined to people or animals, not lumps of rock.  Choosing not to preface your statement with a ¡ indicates that you are Catalan or uncertainty, as in a rhetorical question, which hardly fits the ending !  Stick to sociology Mike, as your Spanish is poor.

            I wouldn’t go shouting your little motto on a demonstration if you don’t want to appear to be an un-educated fool.  Even in Buenos Aires people would turn and look at you for appearing to describe some islands as living.

          • Hugh

            “Of course, the United Kingdom would be outside the curtailing of national sovereignties that Churchill contemplated ….”

            Yes, it would; but were Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland today entirely self governing, independent nations with majority populations wishing to remain so, I’d be interested in the argument that it would be right – through a process of bullying and mendacity – to seek to transfer powers to a government based in England.

            Furthermore, should a majority of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish people (as opposed to a bunch of politicians ignoring their people’s wishes) freely choose to leave, I would be the first to say we shouldn’t stand in their way.

          • Hugh

            And one more thing: it seems Churchill didn’t really see the UK as being part of that United States of Europe.

            In 1953: “We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but
            not comprised. We are associated but not absorbed.”

            Also: “If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.”

          • Peter Barnard

            @ Hugh,@facebook-100000704165371:disqus 

            “… it seems Churchill didn’t really see the UK as being part of that United States of Europe.”

            That was acknowledged in my last sentence a couple of comments above, “Of course,  the United Kingdom would be outside …”

            Sorry if I didn’t make it clear that it was Churchill’s view. 

          • Hugh

            Ah, I see – sorry, misconstrued.

          • Hugh

            If it is being whipped up by a vociferous minority, they’re doing a good job. It’s not petitions but opinion polls that show significant scepticism about the EU project and not just in the UK, but among significant minorities in other European countries as well. It’s worth remembering that the French, as you mention them below, rejected the EU constitution. Valuing sovereignty isn’t at odds with being pro European; it’s pretty solidly at odds with the EU project as conceived and advanced in practice.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I think a highly effective political lobby Hugh;
            these Eurosceptics have been around for years;
            maybe now they are seizing the opportunity to use the global economic crisis as justification for their views.

            As for opinion polls and petitions etc; I think add to the picture, but are of limited scope, and often self selected groups of people; eg I think the D.Express ran a poll recently.Statistics can be distorted and manipulated.
            (R4 “More or Less” ran a good series about how stats can be presented to fit arguments or agendas.)

            Yes, I’m sure scepticism exists elsewhere; for example, rampant nationalism doesn’t just apply to minorities in the UK. One can see it abroad also- for example huge flags in people’s gardens; one could assume that might be the case!

            I can’t really comment too much on what you say about the French population; but I would envisage a very mixed picture; and pro Europeanism being the norm there and countries like Germany.I don’t the specifics about each country; one would need to have far more factual information from an unbiased source.

            In my experience over the years, and hearing from my partner who works regularly across European countries with business partners and in scientific research;
            I have rarely heard anti Euopean sentiment.

            It certainly doesn’t seem to be a hot topic, other than expressed currently in the media perhaps.

            That’s understandable, as what happens to the European economies impacts on us; but then so does global capitalism and eg USA banking practices.

            There seem to be different facets to these arguments; eg about the Euro; but also about different levels of integration.

            I think it would be a mistake to get hung up on the details, but necessary to see the bigger picture/global context- eg mode of capitalism.

            I think there does need to be collective action and responsibility; not individual little islands or platoons.

            I appreciate there are different sides to this argument;
            but nothing is set in stone.

            J

          • Hugh

            The opinion polls are not of limited scope nor self-selecting. They are by far the best indication we have of public opinion. The EU Commission itself does regular “Eurobaromter” polls in member states to gauge attitudes. Last autumn’s found  50% of Europeans considered their country had benefited from membership; 39% believed their country has not benefited from membership. In Germany the proportion thinking membership had benefited their country was 49%, while the proportion who saw no benefit was 41%.

          • Anonymous

            OK, thanks Hugh.

            I can also recommend looking up that
             ”More or Less” programme on R4, hopefully available via i player.
            The series has ended, and may return; but it was fascinating to hear how stats can be applied and manipulated, or presented selectively.

            I agree polls can give a “barometer” of public opinion at selective points in history, but perhaps doesn’t explain wider context. Eg people participating or not; how knowledgable, what interests, age group and general demographics?

            So I just think they should be taken as part of the picture, not absoloute indication of thinking or intent.

            For example, political polls prior to the last general election gave all kinds of predictions, but the results wer not entirely as expected. There are always great variables.

            I guess this is another topic of debate in itself!

            Jo

  • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

    Beijing? They can’t hold the currency down forever. THEIR crash will be rapid and spectacular.

    • Hugh

      Whereas the beauty of the eurozone is that the Germans can hold down their currency forever.

  • Hugh

    Derek, The most recent polls I saw found about 50% in favour of leaving the EU. Where’s your 70% come from?

  • Hugh

    @Derek, Yes, that’s right: just a little bit more than Labour – the party you claim speaks for 70% of the population on Europe.

    • Hugh

      Or to put it another way, 16.5 times the vote that went to the Greens at the last General Election. Presumably we can safely conclude people aren’t too interested in environmental issues.

      • derek

        @Hugh, No? I can just confirm that people are to frightened of the cost of a less carbon atmosphere. 

      • Anonymous

        On another note, Hugh- many people would probably support the death penalty; and there are some issues considered “populist.”
        It’s doesn’t always mean those agendas should be enacted.

        I’m not sure how the line is drawn in politics and law.

        Some issues I believe we will have no choice about in the future; such as enviromental impact of carbon emmissions and global warming for example.

        Also, economies are becoming far more global and interconnected, as is business; so I don’t think any of us can stand alone.

        There needs to be wider collaboration and
        co operation on a wide range of issues, including national/
        international security, and stability of interconnecting economies.

  • Peter Barnard

    @ Derek B,
     
    If you read my past comments, I’m sure that you will come to the conclusion that I think war is abhorrent.
     
    My comparison to past politicians had in mind had nothing to do with the glorification of war but there was a generation then who knew both the Second World War first-hand, and the effects of unemployment and poverty, and that made an indelible imprint on their minds.
     
    That generation knew hardship. Attlee famously spent thirteen years in the east end of London in social work. They drew their inspiration from real knowledge  and inspired others because of real belief.
     
    Do you think that any politician these days, of any party, has “real belief” in anything? Certainly, they aren’t an inspiring bunch. Gordon Brown seemed to me to be close to original Labour in some ways, but he would not tackle business or finance …

    • derek

      @Peter Barnard, I apologise totally @f9f79e8ab4d5a46a915f6cff53cf5feb:disqus . The format of my post wasn’t directed towards you.As ever I think your posts were class. 

    • Anonymous

      I agree entirely with your comments Peter, especially on the subject of “war.”

      Jo

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    But is ‘trade’ with China and India feasible or sustainable, given their population size? Is there much we can offer them? Is ‘trade’ the best way forward in any case, or should localised production for the areas who need the goods be looked towards as a more sustainable option?

  • Hugh

    Yet despite 50% wanting to leave the EU and 16,5%  voting  UKIP you somehow know people aren’t really bothered by EU encroachment on our sovereignty

  • Peter Barnard

    My mistake, Derek – I saw the reference to “measuring by the 1000th, which is what occurs in some engineering jobs …

    • derek

      Sorryagain@Peter Barnard, never your mistake, your toimportant andprecise, I usedtochamfer andnotchbearings,I guess that’s where that came from.

  • Anonymous

    Emma Reynolds writes: “In the post Eurozone crisis European Union, the UK should argue for reform – putting jobs and growth at the centre of the EU’s agenda rather than simply focusing on austerity. ”

    This is confused and ignorant. She is confusing Merkel and the Commission.  She needs to  check out “Europe 2020 targets” at http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/index_en.htm. 

    This outlines targets for jobs and growth proposed by the Commission for the EU as a whole.

    It also presents the targets set by Member States individually. On this score, the UK does worse than any other member of the EU: we have fewer targets than any other state.

    So Emma should be criticising not the European Commission but the UK coalition for not putting jobs and growth at the centre of the agenda. 

    Jon Worth is right: Labour is weak on the EU.  We are ignorant of all the things that the Commission is doing and planning on growth, jobs, innovation etc.  We are letting the coalition get away with murder. We are wasting time re-inventing policy wheels that are already rolling nicely elsewhere in the EU. We are letting down our citizens by failing to point to these Commission policies as a starting point for UK renewal.

  • Martin Yuille

    Emma Reynolds should read this too:
    EU bets on social business to boost growth http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-jobs-growth/eu-bets-social-business-boost-growth-news-509087Convinced that economic growth patterns of the past will not be viable in the future, the European Commission has started a crucial dialogue with stakeholders to ensure that social enterprises are given the means and the recognition to grow, as it is fully aware that policies alone are not enough.“The new growth model we need to create will be much more sober, fairer and greener,” said Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier, addressing a conference on social entrepreneurship on Friday (18 November).

    How can Emma possibly claim that growth and jobs it is not at the centre of the European Commission’s thinking?

  • http://www.greenlawnturf.com.au/ turf suppliers

    I am very happy to discover this particular post very beneficial personally, as it includes lots of details. I choose to browse the quality articles which issue I ran across in your soul post. Appreciate your expressing!

Latest

  • News

    Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

    By Johanna Baxter

    Party Organisation The General Secretary (GS) noted the party’s good performance in the recent Local, Mayoral and South Shields elections and thanked all members, activists and staff for their contribution to that success. The committee discussed the work of Blue State Digital who have been brought in to revolutionise the party’s use of new and social media as part of our suite of campaign tools. It was noted that Matthew McGregor, Head of Blue State Digital’s London Office and former [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

    Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

    Following yesterday’s attack in Woolwich, Leader of the Labour Group on the London Assembly Len Duvall AM said: “The attack in Woolwich was horrific, the actions of local people in response and the head-teacher and staff at the school are a reflection of the values and strength of our community. “At this afternoon’s London Assembly Police and Crime Committee questions will be asked about yesterday’s attack and the response, and at a future assembly meeting we will come together to [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

    If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

    By Ellie Cumbo

    Today End Violence Against Women (EVAW) releases a new report auditing the Government’s progress in acting to prevent violence against women and girls. And with the revelations from Operation Yewtree and group exploitation cases set to roll on for many months , we hope the response from Parliament, policy-makers and the media will be unanimous : that prevention must be at the top of the priority list for any government, of any colour, from now on. On that basis, it’s [...]

    Read more →
  • News The theories that will occupy security forces after Woolwich – Media roundup: May 23rd, 2013

    The theories that will occupy security forces after Woolwich – Media roundup: May 23rd, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Woolwich – the theories that will occupy security forces “Counter-terrorism officers and security officials will doubtless fear that Woolwich fits into the category of crime that they can do little to thwart; random, lone-wolf, unsophisticated attacks, conducted by people who are not [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured This week, amid so much fear, hatred and confusion, let us not forget love

    This week, amid so much fear, hatred and confusion, let us not forget love

    By Emma Burnell

    Life can come out and shock you. The events of yesterday are unimaginable. The family of the poor victim are in indescribable pain. Those who knew the men who have done these terrible things will also be suffering. They too are victims of this awful crime. Over the next few days and weeks we will see the best and the worst of humanity. As John Lydon once sang, anger is an energy. Well directed anger is healthy. We should be [...]

    Read more →