The recent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty has allowed for the transfer of further powers to the EU (European Union). It has also provoked some useful debate within the Conservative Party which will produce a set of realistic and attractive policies for the future.
We should all be concerned about the extended competency of the EU and its effect on our lives. When we last voted in a referendum in 1975, this was about staying in or coming out of what was then theEEC(European Economic Community). In that referendum, just two of ourUKconstituencies voted against. I cannot imagine that the constituencies voting to stay in knew what they might be signing up to. Today we have the prospect of a EU President and High Representative, two of the attributes of a nation-state. Perhaps the proposal for a High Representative is noting that historically theUSPresident tends to be the taller of the two main candidates.
The EU and its predecessor organisations started from an alliance of just six European countries with improved trade relations as the public driver for progress. Behind the scenes, there have always been many people wanting more than mere free trade and instead advocating a federal structure. There has been a quite objectionable sleight of hand in pursuing this under-the-table objective. Some countries have had referenda during the gradual transer of powers toBrusselswhile others have been able to vote twice on the same issue if they made the "wrong" choice first time around.
With two horrendous world wars originating in the mighty continent ofEurope, there is compelling reasoning for us to get on better together and to avoid further carnage. In doing so, it can nevertheless be destructive to pay too little attention to the rich social, economic and cultural heritage of individual European countries. Sadly the EU and its Eurocrats do exactly this.
Anyone who has driven aroundEuropeknows how easy it is to undertake an exercise in word association as you cross the border from one European country into another. This is a real indication of the important and celebratory differences that we have as European countries. To submerge instead of embrace such differences is counter-productive. We cannot sensibly or productively disguise the inability of Europeto speak with one voice on every subject, with foreign affairs being a clear example.
When we become too prescriptive in what we will do together, this can backfire. An example was the ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism) where countries had their currencies managed to trade within prescribed exchange rate ranges. It was a disaster forBritainand wonderful for currency speculators. The pre-defined ranges meant that they could tell when to buy and sell with minimum risk. I knew somebody who made a quick £250,000 out of this mess, although not well enough to share.
Returning to Conservative policy, this is to prevent further Lisbon-style transfers of power without a referendum. A further policy addresses EU constitution "ratchet" clauses that allow some lesser transfers of power without a treaty. Conservative policy will ensure that Parliament can decide on these matters.
Beyond this, we need an open debate about what powers to repatriate fromEurope. It has been a one-way street but that can change. EU treaties are masses rather than pieces of paper but we can still amend our position in them. No British government would sign up to something that could not be changed - would they?
Councillor Bob Lanzer, Leader of Crawley Borough Council
11th November 2009