A Different Ending to Europe's Script (Confusion to our enemies!)

The Financial Times ^ | June 30, 2005 | Lord Lamont of Lerwick

[quidnunc]

Nine years ago on a train I had a chance conversation with Tony Blair about Europe. He concluded: "The thing is, you have to get in there, be as constructive as possible, and they will come round to our way of thinking." I was astonished by this apparent naivety and replied: "I have seen this film before and I know the ending."

I hope the UK prime minister will forgive me for breaking this confidence. But I want to say that I was wrong. His recent poisonous exchanges with Jacques Chirac may sound like previous British failed attempts at constructive engagement in Europe. But this film is different and has not yet ended.

I have some sympathy with Mr Blair. His experiences remind me strongly of my notorious 1992 meeting with European Union finance ministers in Bath shortly before Britain's exit from the exchange rate mechanism. The mood was very sour and I, like Mr Blair today, was accused of inflexibility.

The problem with the EU is that at times its very nature exacerbates internal tensions. That is why the euro may eventually break up: it creates incompatible demands from a single institution, the European Central Bank. In a rational world we would not care if the French adopted shorter working hours. Let them do so, then compete, and they will probably end up reforming. Impose reform and you have a crisis.

Certainly there was a dark mood when I met members of the French political class in Paris last weekend. People talked about "the end of the post-war period"; there were ominous hints of rising extremism. I have seldom encountered such pessimism.

-snip-

[linear]

Interesting article - the author should look to the US Constitution (as it was written, anyway) for support on the proper relationship between the individual states and the EU's federal institution.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

Great article on EU. After following the link, I particularly liked these quotes:

"But I still believe the EU is a cost to Britain economically and must be reduced in various ways. The tapestry of Europe's different nation states requires some over-arching architecture. But we have built the wrong sort of Europe with the wrong sort of institutions. We need to go back to the drawing board."

"The EU should have nothing to do with issues such as racial and sexual discrimination, tobacco advertising or fatty foods. The single market, which still does not exist, needs to be made a reality. The budget should be scaled back to essential expenditure. There is a place for the EU in foreign policy but it is not the foreign policy of the Common Security and Foreign Policy. All so-called "European embassies" with staff with diplomatic immunity should be closed."

Basically he proposes a loose federation of nation-states instead of a socialist EU government over top of little socialist national governments.

It's still unclear how such a loose federation could use one currency when France works 35 hours, and Germany taxes one way and France another.

Hoppy

[Malesherbes]

You are right, but because our Supreme Court has assumed the role of a permanent Constitutional Convention (with only 9 people in attendance,) our Constitution is "evolving" in the same direction as swamp the Europeans have created for themselves.

[DManA]

Also, with the ability to amend with a simple majority of 5.

our Supreme Court has assumed the role of a permanent Constitutional Convention

[linear]

Concur.

I also favor repealing the 17th Amendment - it seems to me that you would then have 100 senators perfectly aligned with confirming federalist judges.

[kjo]

Really enjoyed your characterization of our SC as a permanent Constituional Convention with 9 members. I think that is right and is our problem in a nutshell. Never heard that before.