By now, any sane person is bored of the tedious debate in Britain about its part in the EU. Yet, Nigel Farage is interminable. The Tory Eurosceptics are having a fit (so most of them). David Cameron, the man who exhorted his party to stop banging on about Europe, is now desperately showing off his Eurosceptic wares, hoping his party buy it, while equally trying to add a great big invisible wink face to his European counterparts. Britain will have a say on a new Europe. Wink, wink. If the Conservatives win a majority in the next General Election. Wink.
Of course, though, while we're all bored of it, we're now approaching crunch point. For all the talk of negotiating a reformed Europe, we are going to face a take-it-or-leave-it from the EU that resembles the status quo. It is on that we will be asked to vote. So, the question might as well be put now: in, or out?
Well, we can all sagely nod and think how very grave it all is or we can look at the reality. Only 1% of voters actually think this is the most important issue in Britain today. (Source.) Yet, setting aside the Scottish referendum, this is the most fundamental question we will be asked in our lifetime. It gets to the heart of what the country young people will grow up to inherit will look like. Both the options in the referendum will constrain their actions and choices in the future.
People shy away from romantic notions of national destiny and all of that, it's a bit American. As the Prime Minister said, we bring a cool head to these things. We talk in wallets and their weights, not in terms of the glory of our history. It's a bit cringey now to talk of finest hours and thousand year histories and all of that lark.
This means that all the romantic notions go onto the 'out' side. In Scotland, the cry of freedom stirs the soul in a way that pointing out economic synergy never will. No such case is yet made for Britain and Britishness. Similarly, UKIP can invoke the British Bulldog, one nation boldly stepping forward into an unknown future ready to demonstrate its unique ingenuity away from the hefty chains of 27 nations. As David Cameron said, there is no such thing as a European in the same way there are Germans.
Similarly, it is unlikely that either side in the referendum will take too much time discussing the geopolitical impact of a closer Europe or the militarily strategic impact of a single European political unit. The debate will be poorer because of it. We will not bring the full significance of what we do or do not sign up to public attention. When the young people of today hit middle age, they will take the lead in the country. The decision we take in this referendum will, either way, constrain their ability to shape the world for their own children. So we are obliged to take this decision in this light.
Of course, this project would be unnecessary if this were reality. The interests of the next generation are sidelined for the interests of the voting generation. So we must do something to communicate Europe to the people at large and young people in particular. They must form their thinking on it now and chip into the discussion (or start one) at their dinner tables and try to influence the outcome that will work best for them.
I can hear the incredulity from here. I know, I know. But let's see if I can condense the European question into a few hundred words. I failed in the first draft.
Let's talk cold, hard jobs. Youth unemployment went up again last quarter, so it's potent.
The 27 nations of the EU form the largest economy in the world. Larger than the United States. Adding in other countries like Norway and Switzerland, the margin is slightly higher. The 17 countries of the euro are the second-largest economy in the world. Still bigger than China, although not for long.
This means that global business have 500 million potential customers, all sitting there and waiting to buy things. Cars, phones, haulage, anything. They're all among the very richest countries in the world, so you can sell them stuff they don't even need. So, where should they headquarter? Where should they (nominally) pay tax? Here are the two choices:
A) Germany, a solid member of the eurozone, EU and single market? Located centrally for easy access to anywhere from Cabo de Roca (Portugal) in the West to Virmajärvi (Finland, I swear I had to look that up) in the East. By virtue of its membership, it has favouable trade deals with all the major markets.
B) The UK, who might have a referendum in 2017 on membership of the EU. An out vote means prolonged renegotation of every trade agreement with Europe to stay in the single market. This will happen on a timescale nobody can imagine with results that can't be predicted. They also have to deal with trade deals with all the other markets you want to sell in (US, Japan, China). Unpredictable population, may actually just leave the single market altogether because of perception of choking regulation from Brussels.
Decisions, decisions! Now, I agree with Nigel Farage that it's ridiculous to suggest that BMW will stop selling us cars, Nokia phones and all of that. Indeed, a similar argument goes like this:
A) Britain, home of the world's largest financial sector. Populist government wants to tax high income at 50p in the pound.
B) Monaco. Taxes? What's the address?
And the evidence suggests there isn't that much moving about by high earners. It doesn't even suggest it hampers business formation all that much. But tariffs imposed do have a demonstrable effect. They tax per unit shifted, meaning they cost more to produce or are less attractive to buy -- the effect is the same: less product gets shifted. So headquartering, if your company is large enough to really have an option, is a big thing.
It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that we wouldn't have access to the Single Market one way or the other. It is unlikely we will have tariffs imposed on us because of our exit from the Union. We may not be so lucky with China, India and Brazil however.
But, equally, we must explain that the outs are being disingenuous already. You can't in the same breath say the following: excessive regulation from Europe is choking the recovery, therefore we should leave the EU so we can get rid of it all and prosper AND say we will not lose access to the Single Market. The regulations form the single market and every member thereof, EU or not, must apply the directives that come through. Simple as.
So, there you have it. The in-out referendum is about deciding the future for the next generations. On it depends our prosperity, which will be talked about a lot, our freedom of action for the future, which won't. Get buckled in for 3 more years at least of hearing infinitesemally different policies on the sliding scale that exists between Eurofederalism and Brexitism.
On that point, it's already been kicked off and it's like watching the Rolling Stones get back together again. The Rt Hons Tony Blair, Lord Mandleson and Charles Kennedy MP have all weighed in on David Cameron's much-anticipated Europe speech. It's like being back in 2004 all over again. I've come over all giddy.
No comments:
Post a Comment