Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Nicholas Wright

GET UPDATES FROM Nicholas Wright
 

Irrelevance, isolation and weakness: the real price of Tory Europhobia

Posted: 25/07/2012 12:42

Last week I visited Portsmouth for the first time in years. One of the historical homes of Britain's navy down the centuries, today it feels more like a quiet backwater with just continental ferries to disturb the peace. On my last visit, shortly after the Task Force had returned from the Falkland Islands, the harbour was dominated by the unmistakeable sea-grey of the Royal Navy. Today, to underscore how much things have changed, only a couple of smokestacks are visible. Indeed, there is even a rumour circulating in the local press that the Royal Navy's dockyards risk closure as the senior service faces up to the reality of Treasury cut-backs.

The symbolism seems even starker as it emerged this weekend that David Cameron is now seriously mooting the possibility of a referendum on our EU membership, while his former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, the darling of Tory Eurosceptics everywhere, is today demanding a renegotiation of our membership or an out-and-out withdrawal from the EU if that fails. The only thing to be said for Dr Fox's arguments is that they are clear and uncompromising. This is in stark contrast to the pronouncements of his former boss on what exactly we, the British electorate, would be asked in such a referendum. These, to quote an old teacher of mine, are "clear as mud".

The restive Tory Europhobes have a high-profile champion in Liam Fox - a heavy-weight whose sound-bites attract the attention they crave in their zealous pursuit of "an escape from Europe". Indeed, so focused are they on the purported evils of Brussels, they seem blissfully unaware of the logical conclusion of their policy. This would be to lead us into a very unsplendid isolation, rendering us increasingly irrelevant on the international stage, unable to defend our interests in probably the most turbulent period in international relations for nearly a century.

For let us be clear on what is being suggested here. Siren words about renegotiation are just that. If we honestly believe that as just one of 27, we can turn to our EU partners and demand to renegotiate the terms of our membership on the basis of some "à la carte" policy pick'n'mix, we are sorely mistaken. The suggestion that we will leave if we do not get what we want will be met with regrets but little more. In essence, we are asking our partners to let us have our cake and eat it - to participate, but only on our own terms. If we do that, why should France or Germany, or Italy or Poland, or any of the others not do likewise? Every member state has things it likes and dislikes about the EU - but it comes as a package, otherwise the whole entity unravels. I have been told repeatedly by diplomats involved in representing our interests in Brussels that the point is to be inside the room seeking to influence the argument. On the outside, you can do nothing.

Of course, most anti-European Tories understand this: they know that the choice between renegotiation and departure is really no choice at all. They are itching to be able to withdraw from the EU, convinced that by doing so Britain will somehow regain all its lost influence. But in this is a dangerous illusion. In relative decline for at least the last half-century, Britain's power and influence today rests on its many multilateral commitments. But in particular, it is our memberships of the UN (especially the Security Council), NATO and the EU which provide the basis of our influence on the international stage today.

We are able to fight our corner - punch above our weight, in fact - because of our place in the EU, not in spite of it. Our close relationship with the US relies on our being a key decision-maker in Brussels - so how much attention will Washington pay us if we choose to retreat to the periphery? And while politicians may deny any link between the two, in the longer term departure from the EU would call into question our ability to remain on the Security Council. Part of the argument we make for our continuing membership is the sense of legitimacy arising from our commitment to multilateralism. Outside the EU, how long could we withstand calls to give up our seat in the face of serious and concerted efforts to reform this body?

This, then, is the price we would pay for what the Tory Right likes to present as the reclaiming of Britain's sovereignty. The reality is that their policy is blinkered and insular. At a time when we face ever increasing austerity at home, Dr Fox and his allies would now like us to face isolation, irrelevance and weakness abroad. The Prime Minister's response? Prevarication.

So much for the national interest.

(Originally posted 2 July 2012 on Yet Another Politics Junkie)

 

Follow Nicholas Wright on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NickWrightYAPJ

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:38 AM on 07/27/2012
I agree with everything you have said. However opinions like yours are unlikely to be heard among all the noise from the anti-EU media where mantras such as corrupt, undemocratic, protectionist and profligate are accepted without question.

The carrot that the UK can be a member of the "Common Market" at no cost whatsoever is dangled in front the public omitting the fact that like Norway all the EU trade regulations would still apply but without the ability to block new regulations and still contribute to EU programmes.

The simple in or out question in a referendum provides no further answers in the event of an "out" result. What do the people want in its place? What if the demands can not be met? What then? And when it comes to a referendum how much of a majority does the result have to show for a mandate for change?

The concept that out of the EU the UK would be free to conclude free trade agreements with major economies is another carrot. Why would India offer unfettered access to a market of billion people in return for access to a market of 60 million? And free trade comes with dangers, the UK would no longer be able to offer any protection to domestic industries which could be wiped out by imports from a low cost producer. Free trade is a two way street and we may not like all the traffic coming the opposite way!
09:29 PM on 07/25/2012
Euro-scepticism has for decades made Euro placements unattractive for British middle level civil servants as they know they will return to find their careers set back rather than advanced. Result is we do not send the best to Brussels which is not clever as other countries do.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Nicholas Wright
11:56 AM on 07/26/2012
I think that is becoming increasingly the case. I was struck by some of the remarks quite senior FCO officials made to me about how even there 'Europe' is becoming a far less attractive option, whereas 10-12 years ago they were very much in the vanguard of pushing for a comprehensive involvement. I think you're quite right that we are limiting ourselves by not encouraging the brightest and best from across the civil service to get experience of the EU and how it functions.
02:28 PM on 07/25/2012
The question is, to my mind, whether the calls for renegotiation or withdrawal are actually claims made with actual intent to do those things, or are the claims made in full knowledge that renegotiation would be too politically complex and would never happen? I suspect it's the latter, and all this chain rattling about withdrawal and sovereignty is rhetorical, with the aim of bolstering support for the Tories on the right: 'sovereignty talk' is linked with all kinds of discourses including immigration, 'Great Britishness' etc, so making a load of (in reality) inconsequential noise about EU withdrawal and sovereignty implies to the electorate that they have firm feelings on those other issues, without having to touch immigration directly.