The prophesised Orwellian bureaucracy that is now reality
Bubble — By John Bufton MEP on June 6, 2010 7:00 am
Thirty five years ago today we had anything but a balanced debate on Britain's future in Europe
“THERE is no question of eroding any national sovereignty; there is no blueprint for a federal Europe. There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears I need hardly say are completely unjustified”
These were the assurances made by Prime Minister Edward Heath to his Government and country in 1971, ahead of taking us in to what was then known as the European Economic Community. Four years later, in 1975, his successor, Harold Wilson, gave the country a retrospective referendum on continued membership – the last time Britons were given a ballot on Europe. The question put to the public was simple:
“Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?”
That was 35 years ago to the day. What we now have established in Brussels is a far cry from the notion of a Common Market.
Only voters over 53 years of age have ever had a say on our membership of the EU. For the rest, the European Union has become a given, and sadly for many, an unquestionable and somewhat irrelevant topic. So entrenched are we in the numerous directives and legislative orders that have entangled British law over the decades, that talk of leaving Europe has become to the mainstream parties, almost archaic.
Couple this with the current media apathy and widespread public ignorance on Europe, and further federalist integration is allowed to develop unchecked while the people of Britain, bogged down in a quagmire of over-governance, do not seek to equate Europe with the torrent of gratuitous bureaucracy that makes the world we live in today so stiflingly Orwellian.
But this was not always the case. Hark back again to that date in June 1975 when a turn out of 65% voted 67% in favour of remaining in the so-called common market, and you observe a very different political and media landscape to the one we have today. The Pro-European Campaign dominated the airwaves and became the foremost agenda for all the mainstream press. In fact the debate only found opposition in a lesser circulated Communist national, The Morning Star, the irony being that today the main critics of Brussels find stringent comparison with the former Soviet Union.
At the time, politically, the foremost critics of the concept of the Common Market were led by the left wing parties. The No campaign included the left wing of the Labour Party, comprising cabinet ministers such as Tony Benn. Some members of the Conservative Party also supported the No campaign, although there were far fewer Conservative Eurosceptics in 1975 than there were in subsequent debates on Europe. Among other parties supporting the No campaign were Plaid Cymru, who today purport to hold a radically different view on our membership.
The constitutional change brought about by what is now the European Union has been the greatest in the last 300 years of British political history. Yet the conduct of the campaign in 1975 failed to value the delicate democracy needed to steer the public through such a huge undertaking. The pro-Europe campaign enjoyed vastly greater funding than the No campaign, especially due to support by the CBI whose backing saw many British businesses donating to the cause. The CBI is today at times one of Brussels greatest critics, as is the National Farmers Union which, in the seventies, also pledged support to the pro-European agenda.
But isn’t hindsight a wonderful thing? Anybody who opposed the common market on the grounds of fears for the future developments of a political organisation was labelled a lunatic, a scaremonger and a troublemaker. Some things evidently have not changed. Yet history alone has taught us that that is exactly what has happened. Integration has deepened, we have witnessed a handful of equally potent treaties signed without referral to public opinion, and when people have come out in opposition, their remarks have been entirely overlooked. Thus an entire political system with its own Secretariats and Parliaments, courts of law and constitution grew out of the ashes of what was once a friendly trade agreement. Yet you cannot criticise something for its existence alone. Instead you must look at the direct consequences of it and establish how they affect the lives of the very people whose opinion has been successively vetoed by successive Governments.
Anybody who purported that food prices would increase, integration into the European continent would isolate us from the Commonwealth, British jobs would be under threat and our lives would become overly regulated was deemed a fantasist 35 years ago. Even today, the voice of the Eurosceptic is associated with an outmoded model of thought, a harking back to the good old days of British Imperialism, an out–of-touch embittered crank whose finger is no longer on the pulse in a globalised world.
But why is it deemed so radical or anachronistic to oppose an institution that sucks out national wealth, binds countries politically and is gradually eroding the very concept of national sovereignty? Put directly: “Would you wish to see the UK as part of The United States of Europe?”, I am certain that a huge majority of the population would say: “No!” Yet such claims are reduced to poppycock and hyperbole while the political elite continue to conduct their European negotiations in a clandestine manner, far from the gaze of the British public who would most certainly plunge the brakes on the project were they only to have a clear picture of the European scene.
Often we find ourselves having to take solace in Switzerland as a shining example of European sense. It is hardly sinking under the heavy burden of remaining independent from the European Union. Some might even suggest it has prospered over and above its continental neighbours.
Some 35 years ago we were told if we did not join the Common Market we’d go bust. We were ill advised to disregard our Commonwealth, 54 countries formerly part of the British Empire whose head is our Queen. They speak our language, they share our ideals and they are as diverse as Ireland to India, Canada to Cameroon, Ghana to Guyana. Their diversity and richness of culture and tradition make them an ultimate force as a global diaspora. Instead we have allied ourselves with geographic neighbours and placed all of our eggs in one basket. Now we see the Eurozone sinking and by mere association British industry is losing value hand over fist as the contagion spreads like a trade virus.
What is important to keep in mind is that at no point would I, or any other UKIP member, wish to be described as anti-Europeans. We are Europeans, and we wish to continue to trade and work alongside our European neighbours on issues of great import and demonstrate solidarity on big issues and promote peace. However, were we to lift the heavy weight of some 120,000 directives issued from Brussels, regain control of our over-fished waters (it is interesting to point out here that territorial waters of the EEC were carved up and apportioned between member states before the UK’s entry into the Union, notably by largely landlocked countries), have free reign to farm and trade according to our own standards, deal with issues of human rights in British courts according to our national laws and sentiments, open our borders to whom we choose, not according to whichever nation has most recently been granted visa free travel by Brussels, and begin to re-establish our ties with our forgotten cousins, I am sure that the UK would be a more prosperous, free, democratic, independent and proud country. We would also save something in the region of £65 billion annually just by shirking our disproportionate membership fees and cutting loose from the bureaucratic waste.
In a document classified as “Confidential”, entitled: Cabinet Official Committee on the approach to Europe, Sub-Committee on Financial and Monetary Aspects, Economic and Monetary Union” reference AEO(F)(70)5, dated November 9, 1970, prepared by two senior Treasury officials, it was remarked:
“It should be noted at the outset that the plan for economic and monetary union (EMU) has revolutionary long-term implications, both economic and political. It could imply the ultimate creation of a European federal state with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic life would ultimately be handed over to the central, federal authorities.”
Ted Heath was asked by Peter Sissons on an episode of Question Time, 1st November 1991: “…The single currency, the United States of Europe: was that on your mind when you took Britain in?”
The former Prime Minister simply replied, “Of course, Yes.”
Tags: Europe, European Parliament, John Bufton MEP, referendum
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
20 Comments
OK, since no-one else has commented, I’ll point out that there’s an elephant in the room. How come your vision is of the UK being “a more prosperous, free, democratic, independent and proud country” and not Wales? Or Gwynedd? Or a Celtic league of Ireland, Scotland and Wales? Or Wales-and-Wessex? Anything more that historical accident? Because historical accident really is an idiotic thing to be basing your core policies around.
Because the UK is more valid as an independent entity. As there is popular support for the concept of the UK. Hardly anyone supports an independent Wales.
So you see it is only an elephant in your particular room.
Good article. Hindsight is a great thing!
I see it as positives and negatives in Europe. I think if we were not in Europe we would be forced to manufacture more. Car industry has almost gone, making trains no longer and the new Green technology we must manufacture as Nick Clegg pointed out in the PM debates.
If we were not in Europe and had a stronger commonwealth union we could export to the old empire.
Lets not forget the USA would still be the richest country on earth if it did not export anything, massive internal market.
If Britain was the ‘ablest’ of the EU states in terms of education and manufacturing output their would not be so many euro sceptics around. But unfortunately from our perspective their is the Germans, Danes, Dutch, Swiss and Italians to contend with or compete with.
Lets remember also the future and the nuclear power nations outside of the West, our threat of invasion does not come from Napoleon anymore and the pieces on the Chessboard are different
“How come your vision is of the UK being “a more prosperous, free, democratic, independent and proud country” and not Wales? Or Gwynedd? Or a Celtic league of Ireland, Scotland and Wales? Or Wales-and-Wessex?”
Aren’t all of the above – with the exception of Ireland – within the UK?
In response to Rob, maybe the author just actually simply believes in the UK? The clue is in the title of the party he represents. Since it is the legal country which joined the EU in the first place, it is hardly illogical to recognise that withdrawal from the EU would need to happen for the UK as a whole.
Looking at the main column – and thanks for writing this John – I confess to being impressed with the reasonable tone and well structured argument being deployed here. Even though I’m a very soft pro-EU person, I can’t help but think that the entity we entered in the 1970s is not the same as the one we belong to now. When I think about the absence of further referenda since 1975, despite the undeniably significant changes to the European institution in that time, it makes me realise even more that we have a very unbalanced “constitution” in the UK where such significant change can take place between us and Europe without popular consent through referenda; while at the same time the relatively small scale between Part 3 and Part 4 powers under the Government of Wales Act 2006 needs popular consent. Go figure…
But it’s no good going to all that trouble to create a rational argument against the EU (and thanks for that – I’m impressed by the lack of tin-foil-hattery) if you’re just going to assume that the only alternative is the UK and that you don’t even have to make a case for a return to the constitutional arrangements of the early ‘Seventies.
Rob, I am struggling to understand what you are on about.
UKIP are calling for the UK to leave the European Union. Agree or not, they give a very clear argumant for why they think this.
UKIP are just a bunch of Faulty Towers ‘Little Englanders’. Why are they being given space on WalesHome.org?
Brussels threaten “British Democracy”??? ” … are you bonkers?
“British – Democracy” is a total contradiction in terms…
Co-operating with Germans, Danes, French and Estonians etc.. is much better than having London rule stuffed down our throats.
Everyone I know would far rather have direct rule from Athens or Riga any day than let UKIP or the BNP have some control over our iives.
Whilst the saddos of UKIP dream of Jellied Eel stands on every corner.. the rest of us have long since gone over to pizza, pasta, kebabs and curry. Yum Yum..
¡Viva Europa!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_rNEPIgc8 (Ukraine Eurovision 2007 entry.. wipes the floor with your Gracie Fields!)
Huw, you’d rather have unelected and unknown people from other countries making legislation or people from your own country that you can vote out?
That is the democracy he is talking about.
And all this rubbish about pasta….If we left the EU none of that would stop. There wouldn’t be a sudden shut down of foreign restaurants, or foreign foods taken from our shelves. China isn’t in the EU but we have plenty of Chinese food, same with India etc etc…..
UKIP aren’t against these other cultures, we just want to be able to vote in and out the people who make the rules that govern our lives! The more EU we have the further away the legislation is made from the people.
Love Europe, hate the EU.
Prez said……….’ you’d rather have unelected and unknown people from other countries making legislation or people from your own country that you can vote out?
Wake up Prez… Wales has had that situation forced on us for centuries…
Give me Brussels over Westminster any day!!!!
The UK will never leave the EU because the US wants the UK to stay within the EU. The UK is more closely aligned with the USA than any other state in Europe, the only one with the any true consistent influence within the organisation and combing the loss of US support with the standalone status would put the UK in a poor financial and military situation.
Daran
relatively small scale
It may be small scale but Wales is a small country. The implications of moving from Part 3 to Part 4 are not small in consequence. Rhodri Moragn said of the 2011 referendum on primary power, “it’s about autonomy”. Ieuan Wyn Jones said, “(2010) – (he seems to have got the date wrong) will be a crucial time as we prepare for a law-making Parliament for Wales.” Kirsty Williams as she walked into the Assembly chamber added support by saying she was going in to vote for a “Parliament for Wales”. Changing the way Wales is governed is no small thing. The odd thing is that people who don’t want the people of England – our long time allies and friends – to have a part in the governing of Wales, and yet Huw writes, “Give me Brussels over Westminster any day!!!!” Nuts!
Given your dislike of referndum expressed as, “needs popular consent. Go figure…” I figure it this way… one bad political act doesn’t justify another. Ted Heath, by his own admission, mislead the electorate about the implication of the EU vote. Ron Davies, by his own admission, mislead the electorate on the cost of the Assembly. The people may get the politicians it deserves but we deserve and hope for honest and truthful politicians. The question for the proposed referendum being touted by the politicians at the Assembly is no more truthful than Ted Heath or Ron Davies. Why aren’t they willing to ask a question that says clearly and openly that the move from Part 3 to Part 4 is not about ‘now’ but a Pariiament for Wales with primary law making power?
May be because as Ted Heath and Ron Davies judged, if they told the truth they would lose the popular vote.
“The odd thing is that people who don’t want the people of England – our long time allies and friends – to have a part in the governing of Wales”
I’ve got a long time friend called Rob who I would also consider an ally. We’re mates but I wouldn’t ask him for permission to get a tenner out of an ATM and I wouldn’t ask him for permission if I wanted to go on holiday.
England will still be our ally and friend under these arrangements, and almost certainly still would be under the ‘independence’ style scare stories you float- not that independence has any support (a pity) at the moment, and not that independence is on offer.
I reject the idea that Welsh politicians are incapable of governing us.
I find the True Wales insinuation that Welsh politicians are ‘second-rate’ to be offensive and rooted in prejudice. There is no evidence that politicians over the border are any more capable, and public opinion in fact hints that Assembly politicians are seen as more trustworthy than Westminster politicians.
Illtyd Luke
Welsh politicians are ’second-rate’
By definition they have to be.
They get paid less.
You don’t pay less to the better.
Why do so many AMs swap their position to become MPs.
Money!
If they are good enough, they go.
By definition we have the less able in Cardiff.
Less able to do the work of those paid more.
A devolved institution is by definition ‘second tier’ and second best.
I might be wrong, but haven’t more MPs become AMs rather than vice versa?
Marcus, you are not wrong. That may be the first time I have ever written that sentence.
Len, you write “Given your dislike of referndum expressed as, “needs popular consent. Go figure…” I figure it this way… one bad political act doesn’t justify another.”
I don’t dislike referenda, I just think they are applied unevenly. The more I look at the proposition for one in the Government of Wales Act 2006, the less I feel the need for it. And that’s not because I think we’ll lose
Illtyd Luke
Welsh politicians are ’second-rate’
By definition they have to be.
They get paid less.
You don’t pay less to the better.
Why do so many AMs swap their position to become MPs.
Money!
If they are good enough, they go.
By definition we have the less able in Cardiff.
Less able to do the work of those paid more.
A devolved institution is by definition ‘second tier’ and second best.
Len, I do not envy the world you inhabit, where money alone is the judge of who or what is ‘best’. I’m also quite sure that in the past you’ve claimed that big money + government= bad, but now it’s big money + government= good.
The Welsh Government has a much smaller budget than the UK Government. I happen to think its housing policy is ‘better’. And I happen to think its social justice agenda is better too. And some of the MPs agree with me- Ben Bradshaw certainly did when he copied our second rate Assembly politicians and decided to introduce free parking at hospitals, for the same political reasons our Welsh politicians had chosen.
I think your argument over pay holds even less water when it is not the market determining political wages, but legislation and the Treasury.
A devolved institution’s functions and pay scale might be second tier but only in the world of cynics and reactionaries would mean it was ‘second best’.
This has enthused me because many of us that are campaigning for a Welsh democracy believe that we are campaigning for a politics similar to that enjoyed in the rest of Europe, where economic success is celebrated but greed is frowned upon.
Our Assembly is ‘second rate’ under your terminology. You believe that the ‘mother of parliaments’ is ‘better’, it has more money, and it certainly has more millionaires in its ranks that’s for sure, and they get paid more too. But which of those two institutions reacted ‘better’ to the expenses crisis?
I’ll even pretend I don’t know the Assembly implemented its expenses clear-up BEFORE the scandals. Dafydd El went nuts over Tory AMs getting Ipods. At Westminster MPs were actually taking money and it was allowed to go on and on.
So which one reacted ‘better’? Was it the one with money or the little old Assembly? I’m sure you of all people will appreciate the biblical quality of this real life story.
Len is being both naive & cynical in thinking that for all politicians their sole motivation is their wage (& expenses) package.
“That may be the first time I have ever written that sentence.”
I assume you were joking, I hope you are.