In an earlier post we discussed the absence of a (modern) codified Constitution and the notion of citizenship (instead, subjects of the Crown) in the United Kingdom. Many of the sources, features and procedures of the British constitutional and political system are antiquated. Who in his right mind would today resist a codified Constitution, institute a Monarchy or establish a House of Lords?
The Parliament in Westminster (House of Commons) was an important model internationally, but the first-past-the-post system does not lead to fair representation. The domestic climate in the UK regarding modern fundamental rights has been hesitant, when not outright hostile, as is current public opinion on the European Union.
Legally protected fundamental rights for citizens (or everyone within the jurisdiction) against encroachment by government are cornerstones of modern liberal political entities.
All EU member states are parties to the mother of human rights in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR; CETS No. 005 including amending protocols), which the European Union itself has pledged to accede to.
The EU also houses the next generation daughter, the more comprehensive and modern Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally binding since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force on 1 December 2009.
Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic have blotted their reputations by distancing themselves from the community of values formed around the EU Charter, but the Charter will still bind the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union (Article 51), offering legal protection to all citizens of the EU, including the people of the laggard nations.
Looking at present and future European relations through the prism of the Battle of Britain, totally negating that Britain and the British have representation in the European Union, painting eurozone bank stress tests as pure self-deception, rejoicing at a member state (Hungary) telling the EU and the IMF to “bugger off” [until it needs massive refinancing next year], transport of joy on ConservativeHome at the absence of the EU flag when president Nicolas Sarkozy visited London (via Jason O’Mahony), a proposal to repeal the Act on Britain’s [reduced] share in financing the European Union (via Euromove) are but brief glimpses of constant sowing of discord and disinformation, intended to get the United Kingdom out of the EU or from engaging constructively even “with” (instead of in) Europe.
Much of English discourse on European integration shares the Taliban feeling that they have nothing to gain and nothing to learn from (the rest of) the civilised world. However, are these feelings of superiority well founded, when we look at the constitutional and political system, or the relationship to citizenship and fundamental rights?
Is Shakespeare’s beautiful poetry, “this sceptred isle, ... This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England” (written in approximately 1595), really a healthy philosophical foundation for the fundamental rights, or the future security and prosperity of UK subjects and EU citizens in a globalising world?
For as long as it takes for British EU citizens as a whole to become willing and able to create a constructive and mutually learning relationship in the European Union, at least the rest of the 501 million inhabitants of the EU have cause to reflect on Sallust’s wise words in the Jugurthine War about the effects of discord on political constructs:
Nam concordia parvae res crescunt, discordia maxumae dilabuntur.
The British are Europeans; they are in Europe. When is awareness going to set in? Is Sallust going to age another two millennia before it happens?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your pertinent comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
The European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Spread the word and start preparing for the event.
Thursday 19 August 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
Comments
Well said! :-) It's taken 36 years and us Brits still aren't at all comfortable with being labelled 'Europeans'. (I still blame Maggie Thatcher btw) ;-)
ReplyDeleteWe're (very) slowly getting a bit more used to the idea but expect another 30 odd years before it's fully ingrained in our culture.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the compliment.
Sallust wrote roughly at the time Julius Caesar knocked on the door of Britain, and subsequently most of the island became a part of the Roman Empire for some four centuries.
That was two millenia ago.
Real European integration may advance gradually, but my reading of public opinion polls and public discussion regarding the EU in the UK is that the "sceptred isle" is swimming away into the Atlantic Ocean, rather than integrating mentally as an active and constructive participant in European affairs.
In few member states are political and business elites, media (owners) and "subjects" as negative towards the EU as in Britain. In most countries the populist and nationalist sentiments are mainly confined to the less educated and less prosperous segments of society.
So perhaps an added zero to the 30 years you suggest, making it 300?
(A safe bet, since the chances that I see the latter date are even more remote.)
I am well aware of the short-comings of British political institutions. I am also aware of the endemic corruption and lack of accountability of the EU. So we get the worst of both worlds.
ReplyDeleteOne of the major failures of our political system is the refusal to seek the consent of the people for the hand-over of our sovereignty to the EU. The political establishment fears, for good reason, that the people will vote to leave the EU if ever given the chance. It is this lack of democratic legitimacy which fuels much of the hostility to Brussels.
Our legal system is different to the continental system, so every importation of EU law is like a transfusion of the wrong type of blood. As for the ECHR, we don't need it. We only need our historical liberties to be upheld. These give us far greater freedom than any Euro charter.
BTW Great Britain is an island near Europe. We haven't been European since the last ice age.
Trooper Thompson,
ReplyDeleteYou are as entitled to your opinions as the next man to his, but most of the inhabitants of Great Britain have come in successive waves from the European Continent, the languages and cultures are European, Britain continues to be both the recipient and giver of impulses across the narrow English Channel etc.
Your evaluation of old English liberties is unfounded and your attempts to interpret British traits as somehow superior, desperate.
Your country did vote on membership in a developing project of European integration, then manifested in the Treaties of Rome.
When were you last allowed to vote on the UK constitution?
For a more balanced view of 'endemic corruption', you could read the latest remarks made by the Court of Auditors on the EU accounts.
Why hate the European Union, if - as you admit - UK democracy fails to translate the (prejudiced) views of (uninformed) voters into a decision to leave the EU?
"most of the inhabitants of Great Britain have come in successive waves from the European Continent, the languages and cultures are European"
ReplyDeleteThe same is true of much of the world. By your standard, Australia and Argentina would also be part of Europe.
"Your evaluation of old English liberties is unfounded and your attempts to interpret British traits as somehow superior, desperate."
I never said we were superior, I just pointed out what you, a lawyer, will know, that we, the English, have a different legal system to the Continent, one we share with countries like the United States, and with the coming of the internet, we are much more drawn to our cousins around the globe who share our language and are culturally closer to us. Personally, I've always loved France and speak French, but the reality is that the French, although far closer geographically are much further away culturally than the New Zealanders.
"Your country did vote on membership in a developing project of European integration".
Yes, and in the election of 2005, the country was promised another referendum by all three major parties. The refusal to hold the referendum has added greatly to the hostility of the population towards the EU.
"Why hate the European Union, if - as you admit - UK democracy fails to translate the (prejudiced) views of (uninformed) voters into a decision to leave the EU?"
My hatred is predominately focused on the traitors in my own country, and not the EU. If other countries want to have their 'ever-closer union' that is their business and good luck to them. When you attack the UK democracy, you are attacking the very same corrupt, treasonous faction that is pro-EU.
Trooper Thompson,
ReplyDeleteYou love your distant 'cousins' in the Antipodes, but I suggest that a more rational choice would be to follow the money: the trade in goods and services, investment flows crossing the English Channel.
You are fairly strenuous in emphasising differences between England and the European Continent, seemingly without giving much thought to our common heritage.
European settlers have dominated in Australia, the USA and Argentine, but the distances are greater and interaction less frequent, so in the long run I see Europe converging and former European colonies diverging from our common roots.
My criticism of aspects of the political system in the UK is based on the belief that it has become somewhat obsolete.
One of the cornerstones of the political system in Britain is Parliamentary sovereignty, which actually ill suits your demand for one or more referendums on an isolated question like the relationship with the EU.
I would appreciate a more principled stand on representative versus direct democracy.
Successive UK governments have done much to stall European integration, so my criticism of them stems from other sources than yours.
All said and done, leaving the European Union is for each member state to decide, according to its own constitutional rules, as explicitly stated in the Lisbon Treaty.
"but I suggest that a more rational choice would be to follow the money"
ReplyDeleteYou are falling for the fallacy that trade with Europe requires us to hand over our sovereignty to Brussels. This is not the case. We've been engaged in international trade since Phoenician times.
"You are fairly strenuous in emphasising differences ..."
I'm merely pointing out that the legal systems are different. I am well aware of our shared culture.
"My criticism of aspects of the political system in the UK is based on the belief that it has become somewhat obsolete."
I dare say. We would probably agree on a number of issues where our system deserves criticism. The main difference is that I want my country to solve these problems, and you think we should hand over the responsibility to Brussels.
"...Parliamentary sovereignty, which actually ill suits your demand for one or more referendums on an isolated question like the relationship with the EU. "
We were promised a referendum by the three major political parties. I am demanding only what is due.
"Successive UK governments have done much to stall European integration, so my criticism of them stems from other sources than yours."
The French and the Germans can hold up negotiations, and that's okay. When the British do it, everyone makes a fuss, claiming we're dragging our feet. I think this indicates that the rest of the EU, at least the original members, still see Britain the way De Gaulle did, as not quite European. In fact, if you look at the inner workings of the EU, you find British bureaucrats are often driving forward the project, and they are zealous in implementing regulations, even when they harm our industry and commerce.
"All said and done, leaving the European Union is for each member state to decide"
That is my fervent hope and prayer. Thank you for your hospitality (no sarcasm intended!). I doubt either of us will change our views. I just want you to know that it's not based on a false reverence for the undoubtedly flawed constitution of my country that I oppose membership of the EU, but I want my country to be sovereign and to sort out its own problems, not be taken over by a foreign power. I will always oppose the EU, as long as it seeks to destroy my nation's independence, and I will always see those British people who push this agenda as traitors to their country and to their ancestors. I am, in a word, irreconciliable!
That said, I harbour no ill feelings to you, and wish you well, in the hope that we can agree to differ on this subject, and leave you in peace.
Best regards,
TT
Trooper Thompson,
ReplyDeleteSince you, more or less, said farewell, I won't go into the detail of your arguments.
More as an added consideration I say that I want a better European Union in two respects: Built on representative democracy across the board. Effective in foreign policy, defence and other areas where I think a united Europe could make a difference for the security and prosperity of its citizens.
I intended to read any response, if forthcoming. I just didn't want to outstay my welcome, or give you the impression that you'd have me hanging in the background ready to jump on everything you say in future. As I want my country to leave the EU, the problem is I can only offer negative views, which I'm sure are tiresome to those that don't share them.
ReplyDelete