I
am writing this in the week following the declaration of the results
in the election of members of the European Parliament. For the
pro-european establishment, it was a disaster. In the UK, as was,
perhaps, widely expected, the United Kingdom Independence Party
[UKIP] came top of the polls almost everywhere. Labour and the
Tories each collected about 24% of the vote while UKIP amassed over
29%. Their result in Scotland was more limited but, nevertheless,
UKIP gained their first MEP in Scotland — a fact which has much
annoyed Alex Salmond who has been arguing that UKIP were an irrelevance
in Scotland; now they cannot be ignored. The achievement of UKIP has
been astonishing. It is the first time in well over 100years that
one of the major political parties has not topped an election poll.
I would include the Liberal Democrats in “major parties”; they
did well until after the First World War. But the Lib-Dems have been
virtually annihilated in these European elections. A few days
earlier, on 22nd May, they did badly in the local
elections, losing nearly half of all of their council seats up for election. But in the European Parliament, they have lost all
but one single MEP in the whole of England and Wales. All the major
parties have areas where they are strong and others where they are
weak. Labour are strong in the north of England — and, of course,
in Scotland. But, apart from in London, they still have very few
seats in the UK parliament anywhere south of the famous line from
Bristol to the Humber. The Tories are solid in the prosperous south
east but have only one seat in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats have,
traditionally been strong in the Celtic fringes of Devon, Cornwall,
Wales and Northern Scotland. But in these elections they have been
hammered in the south west. I wonder if this absolutely, obsessively
pro-Europe party will read into this anything other than the standard
excuse of every party that does badly; a failure to get their message
across. The reality is that people in the south west — not the
richest part of England — have been profoundly Euro-sceptic for
years as they have seen their industries strangled and squashed by EU
legislation.
All
across Europe, in many countries, Euro-sceptic parties have been
elected. In the old well-established member states there has been a
considerable vote against the EU and the political establishment —
except perhaps in Germany, the country that gets most benefit from
the union and the euro. The new EU members have, on the whole,
followed instructions and voted for centrist parties that will keep
the present system ticking over. This is quite understandable
because many of them see the EU as a guarantee of some sort of
democracy but, more important, as a bulwark against Russia. But, in
contrast, the countries that have been members for many years are
concerned about the undemocratic nature of EU institutions,
inefficiency, waste, incompetence, corruption, immigration and the
mess that is the euro. Nowhere was the Euroscepticism more intense
than in France — one of the founding six members of the Common
Market. The establishment parties of the government and the centre
all lost seats and there were gains for all the Eurosecptic parties
of left and right but particularly the fairly extreme party the
National Front, lead by Marine Le Pen. Some of the elected members
represent groups that wish to withdraw completely from the EU but
most of the increasingly Eurosceptic countries, even if they want to
keep the EU, want more national control and an ability to manage
their own affairs without constant interference from Brussels — and
these sentiments will only increase in resilience unless Europe
changes. There is precious little sign of that. The parties elected
represent all shades of political opinion from fascist parties of the
extreme right that are little more or less than Nazi parties, to
groups on the extreme left that want something akin to communism.
What they have in common is an opposition to the EU as it exists
today. The monster of the European Union has stagnated for some
years, partly because of the financial crisis but also because making
any changes has become an increasingly monumental task, requiring the
agreement of 28 nations and precipitating certain countries to hold
referendums before their governments can approve the changes. The
general feeling in the European corridors of power has been that in
these uncertain times, referendums result in electorates likely to
keep saying “No!” In the past, it has been traditional that if
any country said “No!” they should be asked the same question
again and again until they said “Yes!” I think there is a belief
in the corridors of Brussels that asking the same question over and
over again will no longer change the answer.
About
half the European Parliament is now made up of MEPs who do not want to be
there at all. They will contribute little to the running of the
day-to-day activities of the parliament and will oppose almost all
legislation. But as things stand, it doesn't matter. The EU
Parliament serves almost no purpose whatsoever and the unelected Euro
politicians and bureaucrats will carry on as though nothing had
happened, generating utterly pointless legislation, spending our
money and providing more jobs for the boys. And, God, how they spend
money. This parliament is incapable of even achieving something on
matters that it does control. After all these years, they still
cannot agree to stop trecking from Brussels to Strasbourg for four
days every month in order to meet on French soil. Every trip
involves carting juggernaut loads of paper — printed in 22
languages — on a journey of 265 miles each way, plus all the Eurocrats and MEPs that want to make the journey, to put them up in
quite expensive hotels and pay all their travelling expenses. The
exercise is utterly pointless and costs at least £165 million every
year — or about £14 million per trip. I assume that absolutely
no-one is in favour of this nonsense except the French.
I
have long argued that the whole of the EU is an organisation that if
it did not exist we would not need to invent it. The last time we
were allowed a meaningful vote on Europe was in 1975 when I, and most
other people in the UK, believed that we were voting in favour of
membership of a common market, a large trading group that would
operate with no obstructions to trade and would allow easy movement
between countries. Our ideas were based on EFTA — the European
Free Trade Association — which had worked very well for a good
number of years without need for any great bureaucracy or Europe-wide
useless parliament. At that time there were only nine members of the
Common Market. Since then the number of member states has increased
to twenty eight and steps have been taken to form an economic and
political union with the parliaments of member states having less and
less power. In addition there has been the formation of a currency
union with Britain not a member — at least we can thank Gordon
Brown for that. This euro area was always an absurd idea. It was OK
for strong economies [ie Germany] but not much good for anyone else
and inevitably it is now in serious trouble. Problems were triggered
by Greece, approaching bankruptcy. Greece only succeeded in joining
the EU when her finances proved she was ready. In reality she was
not ready and the books were the result of some creative accounting
by Goldmann Sachs — who were paid, I understand, a sum adjacent to
$300 million for their expertise in cooking the books. But in order
for Europe to get out of trouble, the ministers and eurocrats want
more of the same — further integration and abrogation of powers to
Brussels — and few of the voters in any country want that.
Following
these EU elections, the heads of governments of all 28 members —
plus their entourages of bureaucrats and hangers-on, all gathered in
Brussels to discuss what they should do about the voters unhelpful
attitude to their project. After a very short meeting — by EU
standards — it was agreed that they needed to look again at their
structures. The fact that they came out with this statement in a
matter of hours indicates that the statement will be virtually
meaningless and capable of taking on any interpretation that any
eurocrat wants to put on it. This is simple euro-code for doing
nothing at all or more of the same and, in the process, making the EU
less susceptible to upset by electorates. Although it is difficult
to see what they could do to achieve this other than removing the
veneer of democracy by scrapping the European Parliament all
together. In order to advance down the road examining their
structures, they need, by-the-way, an extra £3.5 billion per annum.
Fine! How can we fail to believe in the sincerity of their
intentions.
In
the last week senior members of all three major parties have come out
with suggestions of how they can improve their communications with
the electorate, how they can get their message across, refusing to
accept that either the EU or immigration is a problem. Nigel Farage
and UKIP understand now that if they are to become a serious part
with a substantial number of seats in the Westminster parliament and
the potential power to ease us out of the EU, they need to come out
with a proper manifesto and policies on the major issues that trouble
people in this country. On Thursday, 5th June, UKIP will
attempt to wrest Newark from the Tories in a parliamentary
by-election. I think the Tories will win because they have an
existing 16,000 majority and that will need some overturning. Dave
Cameron has visited the constituency four times and sent many cabinet
ministers up there to help. But Nigel Farage needs to do well if
UKIP are to look like a serious contender to build up a potential for
next year's general election.
Europe
has serious problems but it is so atrociously undemocratic yet
politicians will do everything possible to keep it as it is in order
to keep open an unending supply of highly paid non-jobs for them when
their political careers come to an end. Look at Neil Kinnock and his
wife, who between them as a commissioner [Neil] and an MEP [Glynis]
collected about £400,000 per annum for many years. I have nothing
against either of them but if they had disappeared in a puff of smoke
on their way to or from Brussels it would have mattered, in political
terms, not one jot.
As
if things in Europe were not bad enough, we have had the spectre of
Tony Blair telling us that the EU has to proceed and it is
unacceptable to think of Britain leaving. Blair was an appalling
prime minister, whose sanctimonious whining and arrogance we thought
we had lost but now it is suggested that he wants the job of
President of the European Council — a post currently filled by Mr
Herman van Rumpuy. Could there be anything more likely to persuade
that Britain would be better outs die the EU, than Tony Blair
appointed to a high office — I will not say an important office.
David
Cameron is talking of re-negotiating the terms of Britain's
membership of the EU and then putting his proposals to the electorate
via a simple In/Out referendum. I don't think he will get very far
in changing the terms of our membership unless another large country
like France or Italy starts pressing for serious changes on the same
basis. It may have some effect if Cameron makes it clear that
without changes he will recommend withdrawing. This will be welcomed
by large sections of the Tory Party and UKIP.
I
don't know what will come of these election results but I suspect
that I and many others will remain supremely pessimistic that anything
will change. Europeis short of great leaders in every country;
everywhere we have political apparatchiks who are staggeringly
unimpressive. Where is there a Churchill or an Attlee to take us
into a prosperous and independent future?
#
