THE EU REFERENDUM

The Grand Canal. Marilyn and I had a lovely few days in Venice.  Travelling freely around Europe is brilliant.  

On the 23^rd June 2016 the people of the United Kingdom will go to their local polling stations and vote on the EU referendum. Do they want the United Kingdom to stay in the European Union or do they want them to leave?

This question has split our political parties.

The Conservatives, who are in government at the moment, lead by David Cameron, are going through the process of a particularly nasty and vicious struggle between members of their own party. UKIP (The United Kingdom Independence party) lead by Nigel Farage, are vociferously cheerleading the exit group. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have divided opinions. The in fighting in those two political parties appears to be less destructive than within the Conservative party though. 

A recent series of polls produced by ICM (ICM Research, is a public opinion researcher) for the Guardian reveals that overall, the British public are equally split over the referendum. Phone polling, which is the most accurate form of research because the people  are chosen to be a cross section of society taking into account age, ethnicity, gender, social status, work and location. Internet polling seems to be age biased towards a younger group. With internet polling there is no control over the factors that phone polling can take into account. Internet polling proved to be wildly inaccurate in our last general election. Both polling strategies were used in this recent poll by ICM. It showed that in their phone poll 47% were in favour of remaining in the EU, 39% were in favour of leaving and 14% were undecided. Internet polling showed 43% in favour of remaining, 47% in favour of leaving and 10% undecided. If however you take into account all possible variables the picture looks pretty much as though the British public are split half and half. This is a little worrying because it could go either way. There does not seem a big lean one way or the other which is creating tensions in our economic dealings and indeed it is causing tensions throughout Europe. Businesses do not know where or when to invest. It is hampering growth at the moment. Hopefully this is going to be a short term situation which will be clarified when the referendum has been voted on.

Why is a referendum being held? Our Prime Minister, David Cameron promised to hold a referendum if he won the 2015 general election, in response to growing calls from his own Conservative MPs and the UK Independence Party (UKIP), who argued that Britain had not had a say since 1975, when it voted to stay in the EU in a referendum. The EU has changed a lot since then, gaining more control over our daily lives. Immigration issues, questions about sovereignty, questions about democracy and being in charge of our own economic destiny are all issues being hotly debated connected with this issue. Mr Cameron said: "It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics."

Emily, Abi and Marilyn enjoying a walk around La Guell, Gaudi's park in Barcelona.

One of my most favourite places to visit in all of Europe.

David Cameron negotiated with the European Council in Brussels and came back to the British people with changes to our membership that he thinks warrant us remaining in the EU because they deal with some of the worries people have in Britain about being members of the EU.

These cover, firstly child benefit. Migrant workers will still be able to send child benefit payments back to their home country - Mr Cameron had wanted to end this practice - but the payments will be set at a level reflecting the cost of living in their home country rather than the full UK rate.

Secondly there is the question of migrant welfare payments. Mr Cameron says cutting the amount of benefits low paid workers from other EU nations can claim when they take a job in the UK will remove one of the reasons people come to Britain in such large numbers (critics say it will make little difference). He did not get the blanket ban he wanted. New arrivals will not be able to claim tax credits and other welfare payments straight away - but will gradually gain the right to more benefits the longer they stay, at a rate yet to be decided.

British people want to keep the pound. Mr Cameron has said Britain will never join the Euro. He secured assurances that the Eurozone countries will not discriminate against Britain for having a different currency. Any British money spent on bailing out Eurozone nations that get into trouble will also be reimbursed.

There is also the question of the large financial sector we have in the City of London. Mr Cameron has negotiated safeguards for Britain's large financial services industry to prevent Eurozone regulations being imposed on it. 

Finally, for the first time, there will be a clear commitment that Britain is not part of a move towards "ever closer union" with other EU member states - one of the core principles of the EU. This will be incorporated in an EU treaty change. Mr Cameron also secured a "red card" system for national parliaments making it easier for governments to band together to block unwanted legislation. If 55% of national EU parliaments object to a piece of EU legislation it will be rethought. Critics say it is not clear if this would ever be used.

 

Robert Clive, Clive of India negotiating with a Moghul.

Britain and trade have always had a close and fruitful relationship. We are an island sea going nation. The ability that Britain had for enormous growth in trade goes back to the late 1600s. Compared to other European countries such as France, Spain and the Netherlands, which were our trading rivals at the time, Britain appeared to have a much larger middle cl,ass which had a facility for commerce and a desire to settle in new continents. They had the education and wealth to get things done. Merchant ships went to North America and the West Indies. The triangular trading system was born. Slaves would be brought from Africa to the Americas to work on the plantations which grew sugar and cotton and other commodities. These were then shipped back to Britain. In turn these commodities boosted the growth of industries for processing the commodities. Ship building, industrialisation, with its accompanying technological inventions and agriculture, which created a parallel revolution, all boosted Britain as a world power and trading nation. To go with this the City of London became a great financial centre financing this growth alongside new developments. The loss of part of the Americas through the American Revolution was a setback but after the Napoleonic Wars when Britain was the victor and France and Spain were defeated Britain looked to the Far East and India and China and their trading strength and wealthy expanded enormously. All this was facilitated by a powerful Royal Navy policing the oceans and protecting our far reaching trading routes. The British Army in turn based around the world protected Britain’s interest on the land. Robert Clive (born 29 September 1725 – Died 22 November 1774, known as Clive of India, famously fought wars against the various states that had been formed in India after the Mughal Empire. His defence of Arcat and his great victory at Plassey are amongst his military achievements as commander in Chief of the East India Companies army. The British relationship with India was complex and it was highlighted by a series of wars that continued from about 1766 right up to 1849. The British became the dominant power in India. This provides an example of how trade, and the military are closely linked. Trade and wealth, when we think of the British annexation of most of India demonstrate that military might and trade go hand in hand. This was also mirrored somewhat in China over the tea trade. The Chinese tea trade with Britain in the 1720s onwards eventually lead to the Opium Wars.  Military might cemented Britain’s dominance as a trading nation. We can think of the recent wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the consequent terrorist and ongoing military threats and wars. They are seemingly attached to religious, political causing terrorist concerns but they are also about oil, and trade. The disastrous involvement of America, Russia, Europe and every country in the world, to some extent, shows the need to be part of the changing world landscape so they can all get their share.

So through expansion of trade by the use of continuous wars and military might, Britain in the 18^th century, became the most dominant, powerful and wealthy nation in the world.

 

The trenches of the First World War

During the 20^th Century Britain experienced two world wars. The First World War came about because of a number of factors that developed in the decades before 1914. Mutual defence pacts had been agreed between various nations. Britain had agreements with France, Belgium and Japan for instance. Imperialism was an aim for various nations. Britain and France were the big Imperial powers at the time and Germany worked hard to catch up. Africa and other areas in the world were places where rich resources could be obtained to make the European nations strong and wealthy. Germany, France and Britain certainly did not want to let the other gain pre-eminence. Britain had a large navy and army and Germany wanted to match this because world trade can only be viable with a strong military element enabling it to happen. The comments about Britain in the 18^th century previous to this section demonstrate that. There was also a strong element of Nationalism present at the time. All these elements were in place leading up to the First World War. It only took one incidence to ignite the gathering forces, the powder keg and this was created by the Serbian crisis. So the First World War had come about because of clashing self-interests and the continent split along its alliances. The Second World war was no better. Germany had been crushed and impoverished after The First World War. Clemenceau for France and Lloyd George for Britain had demanded stringent reparation from Germany. This created a fertile ground for nationalism and the growth of the Nazi party which offered the German people their self-respect back and a strong dominant future again in Europe. Would these terrible things have happened if all the countries of Europe had worked together and all been closely allied? The fact that those with strong alliances did work and go to war alongside each other against the opposing factions might give us a clue.

The history of the EU, the European Union, has been precipitous since the end of World War II. Straight after the war efforts were begun to forge a political union throughout Europe. In 1951 the European Coal and Steel Union (ECSC) was formed. By 1957 the ECSC ratified two treaties, the European Atomic Energy Community ( EAEC) and the European Economic Community (EEC). The purpose of the EEC was to eventually remove all trade tariffs and other barriers between member states. This was established by 1967. The first member states being Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxemberg and the Netherlands. A rival trade group, EFTA, was established between Austria, Denamrk, Britain and couple of other countries. In 1961 Britain had wanted to become part of the EEC but Presdinet De Gaule of France refused to let Britain in. Britain wanted special dispensations so that they could still have close trading agreements with the Commonwealth Countries and De Gaule saw this as against what Europe wanted as a whole. By 1973, Britains trading links with the Commonwealth countries was not so strong and along with Ireland and Denmark they joined the EEC. Gradually, as the 20^th century progressed other staes joined the EEC too. The EEC expanded in 1981, 9186 and again in 1995.The Maastricht treaty of 1992 brought  the member states even closer together through monetary union with a single currency the Euro. The name of this economic group changed also to the European Union, the EU. Banking and foreign policy too became unified. Britain did not join the monetary union at the time but promised to look at the possibility at a later date. It looks now as though this will never happen. In 2004, most of the members of the old Soviet bloc joined the European Union. So the European union has grown enormously and trade and movement of labour has expanded. There are now twenty eight countries in the European Union.The EU is the world’s greatest trading bloc with no barriers to trade between its member states. This has obviously caused  stresses and strains within this system. There are large economic differences between member states. This has caused a one way flow of workers trying to get jobs in the more affluent countries. This in turn has a put a strain on the social services, education and health systems of those countries. Britain’s renegotiations, under David Cameron, have tried to deal with these issues and it is those sort of issues the exit campaigners are emphasising in their campaign. There are also questions about democracy and sovereignty because of decisions  being made for member states in the European Parliament outside of member states. There are also questions about free speech and other freedoms we expect in a democracy but those issues are more to do with terrorist threats and right wing religious and political movements.

Political and economic migrants making their way across the Mediterranean.

These questions about migration and immigration, freedom of speech and democracy are debates we should always be having. They are important issues which need to be dealt with. What is democracy in this day and age? What is freedom of speech when we have ISIS clerics standing up in Mosques preaching hatred and destruction to the west? We have to think about this and analyse what free speech means and what democracy means. How can we deal with economic migrants and migrants who are fleeing from their own countries in fear of persecution and even death? Places like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan have been destabilised by western forces so how much should we now contribute to helping them?

 

David Cameron arguing to stay in Europe. I am not a conservative voter but I agree. We must stay.

It is easy to say, like the Brexiters, those wanting to leave the European Union, that we would be far better off leaving the EU. We could negotiate our own trade agreements. We can make our own laws and we can be truly democratic again. We could control our own boarders better and so the arguments go on. It all sounds ideal. However, in the light of how trade really works around the world through military power plays and economic might, how do we really think Britain on its own is going to deal with China, Russia, India, the South American countries and so on? What sort of great trade deals are we going to be able to negotiate on our own? It’s easy to look back at our history and say we did it in the past. We were then the world’s greatest military force. If we did leave the EU and other unhappy countries did start to leave also what might that mean? Is it possible alliances and the re-emergence of power struggles within Europe could happen again? That sort of thing caused two world wars not that far back in time in the great scheme of things. The EU is not perfect but it is the best trading bloc we will ever be a part of. Its strong links between countries make it a safe place politically or much safer than it has been in the past. Europe has been a peaceful place for a lot longer than it has ever been before since the second world war. Europe needs working on and adapting and improving for all member states. The best thing, I think is for us to stay and work together on all these issues. They will need to be worked on continuously, forever,I should think, but things will change within the union.