Home page Why Euro-scepticism is not Anti-European Who suffers the most severe criticism? It is often the case that we reserve the most severe criticism for those we love the most. This arises from the sense of frustration arising from things not being as we had imagined but also because that we know that they do not have to be that way. Basically, because of our faith in those we know and love we know that we can risk being particularly critical. Naturally, the effect of such criticism depends upon the perception of the obective of such criticism on the part of those being criticised. If the person being criticised knows that such criticism arises from a foundation of personal concern and love then the impact is greater and usually, on the basis of personal conscience, the person being criticised will modify their ways. In a free society, however, there are limits to this process but it is effective and normally helps everyone end up in a better situation. This basic and repetitive human experience teaches us that we cannot classify people on the basis of some binary notion of states of complete right or wrong. In life, the notion that if you are not with us then you must be against us is the expression of an extreme ignorance of human nature. Mandelson's mangle? It is therefore of note that Peter Mandelson is reported to have made some dubious comments concerning pro-Europeans and Euro-sceptics. He has apparently warned pro-Europeans not to demand a referendum on the latest European treaty because this would play into the hands of the Euro-sceptics who ultimately want to separate the UK from the European Union. If Peter Mandelson indeed stated this he is completely wrong. Just the facts ... There would seem to be a definite segment of the British electorate, amounting to something like 25%-30%, who if asked to vote on the matter, would have no problem supporting separation from the EU. On the other hand, there is a similar sized group for who would vote to stay in Europe. The remaining segment (40%-50%) are there to be convinced either way. It is likely that they would support European membership if the European Union mended its ways whilst on the other hand would wish to leave Europe if the European Union did not want to mend its ways. There are at the moment two issues of contention over the European Union which are in urgent need of resolution. Poor political management One is the way in which British political parties have advanced the subservience of British sovereignty to the European Courts without ever explaining in a honest fashion the full and practical implications of each treaty. In reality, one should not expect anything better from political parties who seldom explain in adequate details the full practical implications of their own policies at the time of general elections. Crumbling European foundations The second issue which is gaining in importance is the European judicial system has become politically compromised and cannot be considered to be impartial. This is a direct outcome of the last two too-rapidly-concluded enlargements of the European Union with 37% of the judiciary now being from former one-party states. Thus the presumptions of impartial enforcement of European Law is no longer with us. The practical legal foundation of all existing treaties has been dangerously eroded. It is therefore not in the interests of any Briton, British company, nor indeed government to extend subservience of any area of British Law to the currently arbitrary European legal decision-making system against which there is no appeal. This statement is not Euro-sceptic but a statement of the facts. Politiciains must stop ignoring the people The bulk of the British electorate would be completely right to demand a referendum. This is, however, not a demand to seek to separate the UK from the European Union. The significance of a referendum is it provides an opportunity for the people to state what they think about the incessant commitment to what is now taking on the form of a new collectivism. If the treaty ends up being rejected by a referendum then the lesson learned is that the European system needs to change before further commitment can be undertaken. Unfortunately, the arrrogance of European politicians was reflected in their refusal to accept this lesson from France's and The Netherland's "No" vote against the draft constitution. Their cynicism was amply demonstrated by Angela Merkel responding to Sarkozy's manipulations so as to create a "repackaged" format for the failed constitution as a new European treaty and then claim that "there is no European constitution". In addition, several alterations were made by the Sarkozy camp which were discovered too late in the day to do much about. Such is the uselessness (dishonesty) of European diplomacy which is subservient to the need to sustain an image of unity promoted by joint declarations of the European Council consisting of pure Euro-spin. This frank dishonesty was, it would seem, deemed to be acceptable by Tony Blair and, it would seem, Gordon Brown is happy with the outcome. Any referendum resulting in a rejection is not a rejection of Europe, it would be a rejection of very poorly devised top-down institutional structure, over-arching responsibilities and, more importantly, their deficient operation in practice. The European convention which drafted the original European constitution is well known to have failed in its mandate to bring Europe closer to the people. The manipulations of the European Council only demonstrated that being near to the people of Europe is something which does not interest these politicians. Time for a more pro-people Europe This failure is of fundamental importance since Europe is, after all, the people of Europe. Unfortunately the outlook attributed to Peter Mandelson is one which confuses Europe with European Union institutions. The people of Europe remain the permanent foundation of European sovereignty whereas if one or two institutions are changed, or even eliminated, would make little difference. If however, national politicians insist in trying to manipulate information and hide the facts and thereby increase the power of such institutions over the lives of the people, then this makes a lot of difference. It is therefore of primary importance that the people of Europe, and not only the population of the United Kingdom, be afforded the opportunity to decide which options they want. It is worth arguing that those who are genuinely pro-European are first and foremost pro-people and want to see European institutions which operate in a pro-people mode. Those who blindly support the European institutions or whose livelihood depends upon them tend to ignore the significant failures in the institutions and are therefore resistant to any needed change and therefore do not want referenda. The freedom of the people of Europe depends upon their being able to express their preferences directly rather than have these manipulated by politicians with pre-defined party preferences. Posted: 8th September, 2007.