By the time I headed for bed on Sunday night France and Germany had declared the results of their European elections, but comparatively few of the British results had come through, despite the fact that our polls had closed some 70 hours before theirs. Why, I wondered?
Indeed, the British results could not even be confirmed during the night as in some places, – the romantic and forsaken Western Isles for instance – and Northern Ireland, counting did not begin until Monday. For reasons of Sabbatarianism, I understand.
Should we rejoice at this quaint expression of European Union diversity – or simply be irritated when the count in certain electoral pockets is so far off the pace?
******
It can’t be down to all the votes being lumped together. For courtesy of ‘Le Figaro’s’ excellent website I can even discover how the villagers voted in the little Auverne commune where I spend occasional holidays. As there are only seventy odd electors, the split of votes between the parties practically identifies who voted how.
We stay in an old water Mill located on the higher reaches of the river Célé, which river forms a practical boundary between two deeply rural communes. The Mill itself is in one, much of its forest and fields in the other.
You might think both would therefore vote in the same way, but no. In ‘our’ village, the French ‘Greens’ won 17 percent of the vote, contributing to the excellent result for them in France as a whole, where they managed 16 per cent and 8 seats.
But cross the little bridge into the walnut meadow and there, in the neighbouring commune, the Green vote was only 11 per cent. Still respectable, but 5 per cent below the national average. Why?
You can understand the appeal of the ecologists. Stand in the lovely medieval square of Figeac and survey the abundance of fresh meat and vegetables, the quality and taste of which can only be imagined by someone used to supermarket pap. In this deeply rural environment agriculture produces products of real excellence, yet farmers cling on by their fingertips in the face of the worldwide onslaught of fast food, low prices and industrial production. If I lived here permanently I’d also vote for the ecologists, I’m thinking.
*****
It was in France, too, that Libertas, the pan-European movement dedicated to the incongruous objectives of scrapping the Lisbon Treaty and making the EU more democratic, claimed its one sad success in the form of Philippe de Villiers, who allied his own party to the Libertas banner. Even Mr Declan Ganley, the party’s founder and driving force, failed to win a seat on his home turf in Ireland.
Many accounts have spoken of actions or omissions on Mr Ganley’s part, which, when taken together, seem to amount to something more distasteful than the mere cut and thrust of normal political campaigning. Whether true or not it scarcely seems to matter now, especially as Ganley has said that he will not lead the ‘no’ campaign in Ireland’s second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He is in danger of vanishing from the political scene.
Nevertheless, though it was pretty clear that the goal of building a pan-European party from scratch and achieving any sort of impact in a few short months was forlorn and impossible, the fact that someone had the courage to attempt it surely deserves some commendation. However lightly, some pan-European ground has been broken and into it more profitable seeds may fall. For this service even supporters of the Lisbon Treaty can afford to be generous to Mr Ganley in his defeat.
*****
I was much impressed by the erudite debate that followed my last post. My only comment is to say that it has always seemed to me that Britain’s strategic policy interests of security and prosperity at home and advancement of the human rights agenda abroad were always most likely to be promoted through an active partnership of like-minded countries, rather than in a splendid and righteous isolation. Besides this, who determines the size of our car headlights is really quite irrelevant.
Tags: Auverne, Election results, European Elections, France, Mr Declan Ganley
#1 by Anne Palmer on June 12th, 2009 - 12:33 pm
Had Mr Ganley have put up on a ticket that he wanted OUT of the EU, he may have romped home. Without that, he was very much like our three major Political Parties here in the UK. They are out of touch with the people too. If 70% of our laws are instigated in the EU now before LISBON, just what will be left for a full compliment of National MP’s and Government’s to do? PLUS still on full pay and vast expences while the people are losing their jobs and sadly their homes. The people cannot afford to remain in the EU.
#2 by Freeborn John on June 12th, 2009 - 1:20 pm
‘Isolation’ is a word much used by British EU supporters, though not one that has much resonance with EU-sceptics. I looked it up to see what it is that EU supporters are fearful of. Wikipedia defines it as:
“Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.”
It could be that this word is used as a mere rhetorical device, or it could be that EU supporters have a genuine fear of a return of protectionism and/or aggressive warfare should Britain leave the EU. But even in the latter case, i think it unlikely that those fears are well-founded. Given the success of the WTO in reducing global tariffs, the shift in the economy towards services (which are tariff-free) and that we have the UN to deter potential warring states (plus NATO to deter any potential UN Security Council veto-wielding aggressor states ) i think it quite unlikely that EU withdrawal (or the replacement of supra-nationalism by inter-governmentalism in the EU) would realize these fears. Perhaps British EU supporters could explain precisely what it is they fear when they talk of “isolationism”?
Peter says (or implies) that he believes UK membership of the EU allows the country to achieve certain objectives that it could not achieve otherwise, and which he presumably feels are worth the sacrifice in lost democracy and budget contributions. These are (i) security at home (ii) prosperity at home and (iii) advancements of human rights abroad.
EU supporters frequently claim that the EU ensures peace. On another occasion i might clarify why i believe that peaceful relations between European states are a pre-condition rather the result of EU membership, and that peace ultimately depends upon Europe consisting of democratic nation-states which is less and less the case because of the EU. But for now i would say that the only linkage i see between peace and EU membership is due to economic inter-dependence which increasingly exists worldwide now thanks to globalisation and so would continue to be true if the UK left the EU.
The argument that the UK would sacrifice ‘prosperity at home’ should we leave the EU is more plausible, but requires a detailed examination of the costs and benefits of membership. There is not much doubt that the direct costs of UK membership of the EU (i.e. budget contributions) is just the tip of the iceberg, with the burden on business of complying with EU regulation plus the cost of the CAP borne by food consumers (i.e. everywone) at the supermarket checkout being far far greater. Furthermore EEA members (e.g. Norway, etc.) and EFTA members (e.g. Swizterland) and even countries like Mexico that have negiotated free-trade agreements with Brussels all have tariff-free access to the European market without the heavy costs of EU membership that the UK must endure, so it is difficult to see why the UK could not achieve ‘prosperity at home’ by emulating Sqitzerland for example.
Even in the worst case that we could not negotiate something akin to Norway, Switzerland’s or Mexico’s relationship with the EU, it would not matter as much as in the past. The success of successive GATT/WTO trade rounds in reducing global tariffs since the 1970s means that the only tariffs that are high enough to distort trade today are those in agriculture where the UK is not a significant producer. So even the ‘worst case’ scenario of all UK trade to the EU26 being subject the EU common external tariff (0% in services, approx 2% in industrial goods) would not be a significant burden, especially bearing in mind that we would presumably be able to apply equivalent tarrifs on the greater volume of trade in industrial and agricultural goods coming in the other direction from the EU26.
I find it difficult to accept that the EU is responsible for advancing human rights abroad. All EU members (plus many other European states) are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights which has no connection to the EU which protect us from the abuse of power by our own state. The EU was not able to prevent human rights outrages in the Balkans, let alone Rwanda, with NATO being found necessary to bring the perpetrators in Belgrade to account. Now it does seem that the prospect of future EU membership (i.e. future cash) has been an incentive in Serbia in tracking down those responsible for past crimes in the Balkans, but there would be other ways to fund that incentive without the UK being subject to the growing body of supranational law that is choking our democracy.
I personally believe that the cost of UK membership of the EU has exceeded the benefits for at least a decade and that the costs will continue to rise while the benefits will continue to diminish as the wider world tends towards global free trade. It seems to me that much of the pro-EU case is now either rhetoric or old arguments from the 1970s that do not apply to today’s globalised world.
#3 by Anne Palmer on June 12th, 2009 - 7:29 pm
Freeborn John, I think you will find that “Lisbon” provides for the EU as a whole to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, in fact, it will be required to accede to it, it is what the ECHR and Lisbon is all about. The Treaty and its protocols do however state that accession to the ECHR WILL NOT AFFECT THE EU’S COMPETENCES because provisions are already in place to preserve the special characteristics of EU Law and of course of the EU as a whole. As you maybe aware the UK, not long after it had joined the ECHR (and it more or less had to in spite of the fact some people in Parliament saw no point in the UK joining such an organisation), the UK had to have a derogation from one part of it, and if my memory serves me right (although I may have got the wrong article?) a derogation from Article 5 had to me made.
#4 by Lawrence on June 13th, 2009 - 4:25 pm
Anne Palmer
You are perfectly correct.
The eu is destroying everything that the workers and their unions have worked and suffered for.
Everyone must unite to get rid of the eu and its dictatorship with its ever increasing encroaching in all areas to diktate how we should live and what we should do.
Let’s unite throughout Europe to get rid of the EU.
#5 by Lawrence on June 13th, 2009 - 4:27 pm
Gonzi bites the dust again for the second time in one week.
EP elections
PL 55% PN 40%
Local Councils Elections
PL 54% PN = 44%
#6 by Lucian on June 15th, 2009 - 3:09 pm
I agree, the UK should leave the EU and should let us (the rest of Europe) continue in our journey.
#7 by JL on June 15th, 2009 - 7:14 pm
Is it not somewhat incongruous to have Lord Mandelson (in relation to possible UK membership of the Euro Area) and plain Kenneth Clarke (in relation to leaving the Lisbon Treaty alone, if fully ratified) bring the debate in the UK down to earth? Where are the voices to say that they have it entirely wrong?
The British people have more sense than is sometimes given them credit.
#8 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on June 16th, 2009 - 1:18 pm
I am sorry to say (sorry for the handful of British pro-Europeans) that I am with Lucian on this one. Please, if you don’t like the EU so much, just let us go ahead. We promise to let you back in in 100 years, when your post-WWII decadence finally hits bottom and you want to count again on the world scene…
#9 by Anne Palmer on June 16th, 2009 - 5:14 pm
Whichever Country you come from Jean-Baptist Perrin it will not have a voice at all if you remain in the EU because IT will speak for all remaining 26 States if we leave. Remove a nought from the 100 years and I doubt the Union will still be going then.