The mention of the European Union will either provoke outrage, disgust or indifference with the majority of people in the UK. There are active campaigns by Members of the European Parliament (MEP) in the UK to push for a referendum and many others feel that the project should be disbanded altogether. The main argument is that the EU is too expensive and does not work.
One of the leading critics for the EU project is UK Independent Party’s (UKIP) Gerrard Batten MEP who produces an annual report entitled “How much does the EU cost Britain”. Gerrard states the report: “Gives a detailed explanation of how the EU budget works and what it is spent on and shows the combined direct costs and indirect costs on the UK economy. It also shows how membership of the EU does not benefit Britain in terms of increased trade with the EU, and explains the burden of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy and Over-Regulation on business.”
According to Gerrard, the UK spends a minimum of £85.3 billion for membership, so one should be more than entitled to ask what we get for that money. The Daily Express has taken up the campaign to ensure that its readers are well aware of the problems associated with EU membership. However I think that more needs to be done in terms of assessing some of the benefits.
It is always important for people to declare their interests so I shall start by saying that I have been to Brussels and have reported from the European Parliament with the European Youth Press. I have also organised a workshop for young European journalists in London to report on migration issues. I now know a few people who live in European countries and would count some of them as friends.
Now, back to the argument being formed, what seem to be missing from the debate around the EU are the genuine expectations of the people living in the UK. What do people think about the policy debates – especially the economic, fiscal and banking regulation? I was completely shocked to find out that the: “EU governments have pumped more than €2 trillion into the rescue effort. EU leaders coordinated interventions, supporting banks and allowing guarantees for lending. The EU also increased national guarantees for individuals’ savings accounts to a minimum of €50 000.” We can always debate whether that action is good or not in the short of long term, but at least people are willing to create some policies and take direct action in times of crisis.
One story that seemed to have been overlooked was the announcement of the workers registration scheme being scrapped. This means that workers from newly joined member states no longer have to register that they are in the country working. This also means that EU citizens will have more freedom of movement around the EU and be entitled to out of work benefits, social support and health care.
Another problem we have is not separating the EU parliament from the European Court of Human Rights. We had some arguments against giving prisoners the right to vote, which was an ECHR ruling but many people just hear the word European and tie the two completely different institutions together. We need to always remember why these institutions were set up in the first place and that they should be reformed by people engaging in the process, not just trying to dismantle things from the sidelines.
Why is it that only a handful of people in the UK have had a positive experience of the EU? Could it be our talent for learning foreign languages or our behaviour when we are let out of the country?
Okay stereotypes aside, maybe it’s the fact that we are used to our institutions fixing public problems and the EU seems to be so far away from our everyday life that our problems are not being fixed fast enough. Some of our main concerns include jobs, growth, unemployment, crime, immigration, which the EU seems to benefit other member states over our own interest. All of the high level debate on policy sometimes misses what actual citizens need in their daily lives. There should be more attention paid towards those EU institutions that are not delivering policy goals on the ground level.
Where are the NGOs and citizens groups? The over-reliance on state funds has left civil groups and NGOs without a strong campaigning voice due to funding cuts. The NGOs have professionalised themselves too much that they are now turning away from their member base. This is leaving many people feeling at a loss when it comes to engaging with the EU and those organisations should be doing more to connect with people again, not just using their positions as a stepping stone into mainstream politics.
We seem to be using 19th century issues to fix 21st century problems. The citizens need to be invited into the room and no-body should leave until everyone knows what each person is going to do. We need true democracy in the short term and leave the elites to care about history and the future. If we empower citizens, we cannot be sure what the results will be but with distributed intelligence, people will start engaging and will make decision based on rationale rather than emotion.
The pragmatism of getting things done has been lost and now we are turning to woolly language with the constitutionalist approach. We need to focus on finding the problems and fixing them.
It’s all about the economy and the overall economic pessimism.
We should start by shaping society to how society wants it rather than focusing on what the market can bare. In the age of austerity – the economy always plays a huge role in how people perceive the EU institutions. Britain has signed up to share the economic policy with the EU but do we think Osborne will parade his budget in Europe before being presented in parliament?
We need more shared approaches with shared rights along with shared participation, which is a liberal and republican approach. Our main concern should be to re-shape the capital markets to work for people instead of working in a cause they were never intended to do, i.e. capital generation. If there is one issue where the EU seems to be leading the current UK policy is its deal on the bankers. The UK wants to move from revenge to re-building, which means everything goes back to normal – big bonuses, huge shareholder returns and the off-shoring of financial capital. At least the EU policy makers seem to have a tenor of fairness which UK political elites have tended to misunderstand that process.
We seem to be more concerned in the UK with maintaining our financial centre status in the EU, G7 and G20. The UK is slowly becoming a tax haven and that will keep the financial sector in place. That being said, do we really want too big to fail in the UK – is that the sector that we wish to depend upon going forward?
So what is the future for the UK within Europe?
The more will pull away the more exposed we will become, as we are already out on the periphery. We can come in from the sidelines by participating in evidence based policy, joined up regulation, multi state holder governance, and we could lead on global integration. There are more problems on the horizon so we need more unification and strength to deal with the troubles ahead.