“So I stand here, proud to be British and proud to be European, representing a country that does not see itself as an island adrift from Europe, but as a country at the centre of Europe, not in Europe’s slip-stream but in Europe’s mainstream.”
Thus spoke UK prime minister Gordon Brown to the European Parliament on 24 March 2009.
***
Europe’s mainstream?
Recent UK polls show very little recognition of a country where the population sees itself as in Europe’s mainstream or desiring to become part of it.
Even if Brown equated country and government, the statement is far from convincing.
***
The UK government (not least Brown himself) has fought an ongoing battle to thwart or limit treaty reform aimed at making the European Union more effective, democratic and solidary, and British government representatives miss few opportunities to hamper progress during daily Council work.
Currently the United Kingdom has opt-outs from two crucial areas of EU policy: the Schengen agreement abolishing border controls and the third stage of economic and monetary union (the euro).
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the British opt-outs would be extended to two new areas: the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
In each case the United Kingdom belongs to a fraction of EU member states outside the common framework (although only 16 have made it into the Eurozone as yet).
If Brown rejects the idea of his country being in the slip-stream of Europe, how about describing it as forming a counter-current to progress?
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
Comments
The formation and evolution of the EU has been and is largely hapazard and the rationales behind it haven't been properly articulated to the public in any European country, never mind the question of the UK itself adopting a coherent position. So the UK isn't even a real counter-current.
ReplyDeleteEurocentric,
ReplyDeleteYou are right about the evolution of the EEC/EC/EU having been less than systematic by the His Majesty the King of Belgians etc., and the explanations to the populations have not penetrated deeply.
But if one follows the intergovernmental conferences or various proposals in the Council, Her Majesty's Government has been consistent, actually since the foundation of the Council of Europe (1949).
I think the track record is consistent enough to justify my judgement.
What I wonder about is why so large swathes of the European Parliament found it opportune to give Brown's speech such a positive gloss, despite the undeniable facts.
Perhaps they felt the need to seem to believe the rhetoric ahead of a coming Tory Government.