Culturally distinct, economically intertwined
Postcard — By Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds on January 26, 2012 7:00 am
Not quite the light hearted issue Weatherspoon's seems to think
IN coverage of the UK’s role in Europe, the significance of the 21 miles of water between Dover and Calais is rarely understated. Cue a recent discussion with a local man in an Amsterdam bar. He had lived in the city for over 50 years; his lifespan covered the whole history of European integration, from the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Asked how he felt about Amsterdam’s liberal attitude to drugs, he quickly responded that the problem “is with all these people who get attracted from the island here on cheap airlines… so many British tourists.”
For Eurosceptics who wish to demonstrate the cultural gulf between the UK and continental Europe, Amsterdam is of course an exemplar. It is difficult – if not impossible – to imagine a red light district covering the streets outside London Paddington, or strolling down Regent Street with the smell of cannabis seeping from shop after shop. Yet to see the UK’s relationship with Europe entirely through that cultural lens would be to ignore the wider picture.
The EU Overseas Trade Statistics of October 2011 indicates that the UK’s exports to the EU are increasing: they rose by £18.3 million in comparison to September 2011 and total £13.7 billion. At the same time, imports from the EU increased £17.1 billion. So clearly, whether we like it or not, our trade ties to the EU are tightening irrespective of the global financial crash. Indeed, the Netherlands was the UK’s third largest EU partner for exports in October 2011, accounting for 14%, closely behind France on 15%.
These recent trade statistics demonstrate again – if such further evidence were needed – the difficult balance British Prime Ministers have to strike in our relationship with the EU. Countries in the Eurozone will not be dictated to by a non-Euro member, but, at the same time, it is vital for us to influence the market that we rely upon to such an extent.
Yet delicate negotiating strategies in UK foreign policy are nothing new. From the maintenance of the“balance of power” in the web of alliances between European nations in the late nineteenth century to the reconciling of Britain’s post-1945 Atlanticism to its 1973 membership of the EEC, the UK has been able to defend its own interests through a careful analysis of its position in international relations.
This is the real problem with David Cameron’s peremptory veto at the recent European Council Meeting in Brussels. The veto is not usually evidence of a skilful negotiating technique, rather, the last resort in a situation of failure. Worse still, Cameron may well be guilty of compromising Britain’s national interest in exchange for little more than a piece of easy theatre to please the Eurosceptic right on his backbenches. For he has once again placed the UK in the margins of Europe. 26 v 1 is hardly a great position to start any future negotiation from. The relationship with France – historically so complicated, but recently much closer with a sharing of defence resources – is again particularly strained.
In reality, the reaction of Eurosceptics in the media to the use of the veto is a diversion from the serious diplomatic work the UK will now need to undertake to influence events in the Eurozone. The English Channel is unquestionably more than simply a geographical fact. The British may psychologically be an island race. But our links with continental Europe go far deeper than busy cheap flights.
Tags: David Cameron, Europe, leadership, Veto
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
7 Comments
Firstly, there’s no such things as a British ‘race’.
Secondly, this only highlights the need for Wales to have its own voice in Europe. How on earth can Cameron represent Wales on an international stage?
And yes, links with contenental Europe are deep! Celts/Saxons etc are from continental europe, so we’ve been linked for thousands of years.
This piece could’ve easily been written for BritainHome instead of WalesHome. The only Wales angle is that it’s written by a Labour guy in Torfaen. British centric without a thought how the veto impacts Wales.
The veto impacts Wales in that it impacts the nation state that we are a part of. Don’t drift so lazily into the ‘Mandela released? Why’s that news here in Anytown? mentality. Whilst I don’t agree with Cameron’s politics, the British Prime Minister rightly represents us on the European stage. And as for “Celts/Saxons etc are from continental europe, so we’ve been linked for thousands of years.” I’d bet you quite some money that any survey of cultural attitudes in Wales would show that Welsh men and women feel more of a link to the rest of Britain than to Europe. I think you’re arguing backwards from your prefered conclusion there.
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Even your leader in Wales said that the UK government can’t represent Wales on the European stage.
As for the rest of the comments, I’ll let others judge.
‘This government doesn’t sufficiently represent our interests’, as opposed to ‘the Government can’t represent our interests’. There’s a big difference.
I completely agree with Mr Hunt. Mr Jones’ logic is question-begging. What the veto debacle highlighted was Cameron’s naive negotiating skills and his need to pacify the right wing of his Parliamentary party. In years to come, the effect of that failure will be as keenly felt in South Shields as it will in South Wales. That’s why the article is obviously relevant to Wales, and remains so whether or not there is some corny parochialism tacked on to the end of a sentence. But to come back to the point, does the North East therefore require its own ‘voice’ in Europe? What is so different about our interests here in Wales as distinct from the interests of other working class people in England that they need to be voiced by somebody else? All we’re really saying here is that Cameron himself is inadequate and performed inadequately and we in Wales would prefer someone else to have done a better job. So what? Why is that an argument for ‘separate’ representation?
Because what, unfortunately, we would lose through having such separate representation, is the clout of negotiating as the UK. The central charge against Cameron is that he wasted influence that he could and should have used. Influence, when you get down to it, comes from the UK’s GDP, trade links and historical position.
Let’s be honest about this, without doing ourselves down. The simple reality is that our ‘own voice’ would be a voice in the wind, compared to what it is as part of the UK. The fact that Cameron chose to whimper outside the tent, though in an ideal world would cost him the chance to be speaking for us all in future, sadly, is never going to change that.
Awww, Ryan, such wide-eyed optimism to believe the UK government would speak for Wales, unless it it was a coincidence.
We are out of sync with the UK on so many policies, such as public procurement/agriculture etc. how on earth can we speak with one voice?
And Wales is a Country, the NE of England isn’t. Quite easy, really.
Ireland and Wales have similar populations Who has the loudest voice in Europe? Ask yourself why, and you have your answer.
It’s always nice to see you Brit-Nats standing together, mind. Warms the cockles of me ‘art!
Brit-Nat? I am a Nat of no sort whatsoever.