Skip to main content

We are Europe

The UK has always has a very detached view of its position in Europe. We say we are going "to Europe" instead of going to the continent. For much of our history our foreign policy was based on a splendid isolation where we were content to play off the various continental powers against each other. Meanwhile we busied ourselves with creating a global empire everywhere except in Europe. With this history, it is not surprising that we view any attempt by European powers to ally amongst themselves in order to grow stronger with something very close to fear. The threats to Britain came from Europe, while our English speaking allies against such threats were even more than comrades, they were blood relatives.

However, Britain, in the words of Dean Acheson, "Lost an Empire and did not find a role".

Now it is time for us to put forward a vision of our country's place in the world. Our alliance with the USA is not making our country any safer. Indeed our craven vision of it has dragged our country into an unnecessary war- about the worst thing that any government can do.

Despite the sacrifices that we have made, Britain is taken for granted by the USA and by the wider world- and being Mr. Bush's poodle has made us much weaker.

It is time for a fundamental reappraisal of the British role in the world. We must not weaken our security by damaging NATO, but we should feel free to establish a more independent line. Britain is not in alliance with Israel, and we should feel free to criticize their attacks on Lebanon as an injustice to the Lebanese people and a danger to Israel itself. We should condemn utterly Camp X-Ray at Gunaatanamo Bay- a scandalous crime. We should take issue with the role of China in Asia, especially Tibet, and in particular we should speak out against their appalling record on human rights. We should support the Central European democracies when the Russians make economic attacks against them.

However, the elephant in the living room is Europe.

As I write this from the old town of Tallinn, I am very conscious of the generally positive view that officials here have of the UK, but the constant refrain is that the British role in the EU is disorganised and disruptive. Britain's rulers continue to regard the European Union as a temporary irrelevance which will probably collapse anyway. This is intellectually lazy to the point of actual stupidity. The European Union is not and can not be simply a free trade area, as if this this is separate from the political dimension. Any level of cooperation will require political institutions, and for more than fifty years this is what the EU and its precedessor groups provided. The most important single position for British foreign policy must now be to make up our minds about what role we should take in the European Union. The fact that the most Conservatives genuinely believe that we would be "better off out" is a logical position, but not one that I can share. We a culturally and economically a European state. Our most important interests lie in Europe and not in Asia or America. However much they may want to make it so, the Conservatives can not anchor the UK off Nantucket. Whatever we do, we must accept that we will always have a very close relationship with the other European powers, and the Union that they have created.

In fact for much of the last twenty years much of the intellectual energy behind the key European reforms- not least the single European market- has come from British ideas. Imagine how much stronger we might have been if we had actually positively engaged with the EU, instead of being so negative. The time has come to put forward a positive agenda to take this Union of which we form part into a more open future.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...