This
is a paragraph written by someone living in the wealthy South East of
the UK. You might call it the Catalan perspective - Sick
and tired of subsidising folk from the rest of the country? You
belong to a select club – the club of the hard-working, clever and
creative people living in London and the South East who
single-handedly are giving the rest of the nation a standard of
living they can’t, or won’t, create for themselves. . . The
subsidy from London and the South East to the rest of the country is
truly astonishing. . . . This area needs its own party. It needs a
leader who believes that the striving classes in the South are
overtaxed and overburdened. Can't
see it happening myself. But it's a weird world, so who really knows?
That
famous Catalan, Dalí loved to rip off people, says his ex muse.
Which reminds me . . . If you have little taste but want to appear
hip, you can buy a (Oooh, 'limited edition') sketch by Tracey Emin
sketch here.
During
the 19th century, there were many bright men in Europe who
were concerned that full democracy would bring mob rule. So things
should be taken slowly. In steps we now look back on as ludicrous.
Especially that of keeping women disenfranchised. But when you look
at what's happening in Egypt and what has happened in Algeria, Libya
and Afghanistan, you're forced to ask whether these timid gentlemen
didn't have a point. Then comes the far more difficult question of
how to take the fears into consideration. To which no one has an
answer, I believe.
The
Priors are a British couple who bought a house on which all the
papers were in order according to local officials and legal advisers.
But the regional government chose to differ and, astonishingly, chose
the Priors' house to be the only one demolished, against the
backcloth of widespread property illegalities. The case has naturally
become a cause celèbre
and has contributed to the reluctance of Brits to buy property in
Spain. This reaction apparently came as a surprise to the various
levels of Spanish authority. Anyway, the case has been through
various courts – costing the Priors more than 150,000 euros and
several years of their lives – and they've finally achieved a
nominal victory in securing Superior Court adjudication that the
demolition was wrong and they should be compensated. Whether they
will see any money is a another question. Looking back at it all,
it's clear the poor Priors became – and remain – victims of
several dysfunctionalities in Spanish life. See here for more on the
truly disgraceful treatment that's been meted out to them. Treatment
which should shame Spain. But it almost certainly won't; the Spanish
press has very largely ignored it or blamed the Priors themselves.
Has
the hour of the EU zealots really passed? Rodney Leach feels that
it has and that “The sceptics have won”.
Meaning it's time now
for a new Europe. One in which Britain's 'moderate eurosceptics' win
the day. As I can't cite the article because of The Times' paywall, I
quote it here in full:-
This
is the perfect chance for Britain to work out how to loosen its ties
with Brussels.
If
Britain pulls out of the EU, that will be as much due to our
condescending Eurozealots, who have called every turn wrong for 30
years, as to UKIP. Both alike tell us that radical change in the
European structure is out of the question.
Moderate
sceptics, who want to stay in the EU but might want “out” if the
Government can’t negotiate a changed relationship, are the majority
of the electorate, but their voice is too seldom heard. The BBC
neglects them, presumably calculating that pitting Nigel Farage
against Denis MacShane does more for its audience ratings than
analysis of the most important issue facing the country.
Circumstances,
however, have conspired to deliver our fate to the moderates. While
the eurozone faces a polarised choice between economic union or
break-up, Britain has three options: “more Europe”, exit or
renegotiate. And since “more Europe” has become unthinkable, the
effective option is exit or reform. In a word, the Europhiles have
lost.
The
sceptics, however, have not yet won. For this, the coalition is to
blame for its failure to articulate a constructive vision of a Europe
that would meet the aims both of the integrationist countries and of
those that put self-determination first.
Whether
Britain withdraws or remains, it will have to negotiate terms with an
EU that has lost its way after the triumphs of its first 50 years,
when tariffs were cut, enemies reconciled and a haven given to
victims of dictatorships. Its icon, the euro, has awakened
resentments unknown since the Second World War. Unemployment in the
South is at 1930s levels, with nothing but depression and endless
financial chicanery in sight. The region has slid inexorably down the
global economic league tables.
Brussels
treats the catastrophe predictably as a pretext for “more Europe”,
but Germany’s reaction, caught between the appeal of European
solidarity and reluctance to be the milch cow for Mediterranean
indiscipline, has been cautious and ambivalent. There is nothing in
Berlin’s response to suggest a closed mind to a new deal with the
countries outside the eurozone. They know that a British government
that signed up to deeper economic integration wouldn’t last a week.
They also read the polls, showing UKIP neck-and-neck with the Lib
Dems. It is not in Germany’s interest to drive Britain to withdraw,
depriving the EU of its financial centre, its principal advocate of
democracy and free trade, and one of its two foremost military
powers, not to mention its highly lucrative market.
Germany
is ripe for change. After two thirds of a century’s atonement, it
no longer has to disprove a wish for domination or to pretend that
without uniformity there can be no peace in Europe. It can admit that
the proudest European heritage — German music, Italian painting,
French civilisation, English literature — is utterly removed from
the integrationist obsessions of the European political class.
Liberated from guilt, Germany begins to recognise again democracy’s
ability to reconcile voters to political defeat, to repeal unworkable
laws and dismiss bad leaders, and to tackle difficulties with the
grain of national traditions, institutions and instincts, not by the
imposition of one-size-fits- all European-level solutions.
The
shape of a new Europe therefore writes its own script — a
neighbourly alliance, partly federal, partly by treaty between
independent states, in which those who want to share a currency and
economic sovereignty and those who just want co-operation would be
equally welcome. Only trade, the bedrock of the original Common
Market, would be universal.
In
truth, it is not the eurozone that is the “core” of Europe — it
is the single market. In the new, flexible model for EU integration,
the UK would remain a full member of the customs union and single
market and maintain its vote on making Europe’s trading rules. But
it could limit Brussels’ involvement in areas such as policing and
crime, fisheries, farming, employment law and regional policy.
The
EU’s institutions would be adapted so as not to discriminate
against countries who have chosen to be less integrated. Likewise,
the UK would not vote on EU laws that did not apply to itself. The
presumption of travel towards a common destiny would cease to apply,
since all forms of EU membership would be equally legitimate.
Instead
of institutional tinkering and going round in circles on the euro,
national democracies would start working out how to succeed in the
globally networked modern world. Each country would find its own way
back to prosperity. That, after all, was how Europe became rich and
civilised in the first place. Relieved from unwanted legislation and
desperate sacrifices for the euro, we would rediscover the amity of
neighbours.
We
might even find that a confederate EU had become a magnet for Norway
and Switzerland. That would be a delicious irony — sceptical
Britain bringing about a strengthening of Europe that has eluded the
zealots.
No comments:
Post a Comment