Euro vision

The UK is divided over many issues - about paying the bills, about keeping the lights on and, most ridiculous of all, about the continent we’re on.

“Are you in favour of Europe” is a ridiculous question to ask. It’s like asking a Swiss politician if they are in favour of mountains. We live in Europe. It is the continent our country is on. It’s not a matter of political opinion, it’s geographical fact. The narrow strip of water between us and France is not tectonically significant - we are Europeans.

Now, of course, in statements about ‘Europe’, people are mostly using the word as a shorthand for the EU. But the laziness of the nickname betrays a sloppiness in the thinking. Many of the evils ascribed to one European body derive from a different one entirely. These unthinking kind of eurosceptics do not distinguish between European unions, commissions, courts, or councils. They will rail interchangeably about Brussels or Strasbourg. When they say Europe, that is exactly what they mean. They mean local foreigners. Foreigners are a worry to these people, and nearby foreigners are just as foreign as distant foreigners, but with the added worry of proximity.

Over the last decade or two, the eurosceptic tendency - most often affiliated with the right wing of the Conservative Party - has been a constant presence. They have made a considerable contribution to public life, not least ensuring the frequent unelectable disunity of the Conservative Party - a valuable service to the nation in itself. More surprisingly, there have even been occasions that they have been right.

The euro is the best example. When the euro was a live political issue in the UK, those who advocated British entry were the modernisers, the bold dreamers of the future, the new generation. Needless to say, this bright gleaming bunch were led by Tony Blair, who liked things that were new. At one point, he seemed to like things for no reason other than their newness. We may not know much about Tony Blair’s culinary tastes, but if he were coming round to dinner in the late 90s, you would probably give him new potatoes - it would feel like the safe bet.

The euro was a new idea but, it turns out, not a particularly excellent one. The eurozone seems not to have benefited many of its countries in their efforts to manage the financial crisis. When things go bad, it seems that governments benefit from having control of as many financial levers as possible. There is never a good time to lose control of your economy, but this has surely been amongst the worst. 

This was always part of the problem of the euro. The problems of Germany and Greece were never likely to be identical, but the euro demands they swallow the same medicine. The chances are that if the prescription matches the needs of one country, it will do no good for the other. And between Germany at one end and Greece at the other, there are sixteen more countries with individual needs. A single economic and monetary policy for all of them will, at any one time, be a compromise that probably serves none of them especially perfectly.

The eurosceptic wing of British politics warned us about the euro. How? Did they talk of the dangers of co-ordinating economic and monetary policy over too widely varied an area? Not exactly. Mostly, they wore suits made of pound signs, and dressed their bulldogs in union jack waistcoats. If that was meant to be a metaphor for the harmonisation of interest rates, it was a pretty damned subtle one.

The one time that the right wing of the Tory party happened to be right about something, they made  absolutely sure that they seemed as ridiculous as possible. There’s no use being right if you also make yourselves laughable. If Churchill had spent the 1930s warning about German rearmament while wearing a red nose and oversized shoes, he would have to share some of the blame for being ignored.

The euro was, either in concept or execution, a flawed plan. But not for any of the reasons that its opponents were noisiest about. The fatal weaknesses of European and monetary union were nothing to do with the Queen’s head. National identity was never even remotely at stake. You may have travelled to countries that use the euro: you will have noticed that they are still countries. Crossing the channel, you don’t feel you have entered the part of the eurozone that used to be called France. If you think changing currency will reduce your national character, you surely have a pretty low opinion of your nation.

Europe exists, and no amount of pulling faces towards Calais will change that. The EU is an incompetent, partly corrupt organisation that needs massive reform. It is still a good thing that it exists. Before it was created, its countries did not often, if ever, go seventy years without declaring war on each other. Yet the current era, the era of the European project, is on the verge of that record.

And it is still a good thing that the UK is a member. Why would you not want to be a part of the club of where you live? You may not often, or ever, attend your residents’ association meetings, but you’d be pretty annoyed if they didn’t invite you, then in your absence voted to knock your house down. Leaving the EU would be asking to have less of a say.

UKIP have now inherited the eurosceptic mantle. They feel that something is wrong with the country, they don’t like it, and foreigners must be to blame. Imagine if UKIP had been around in the 1960s. Britain spent that decade begging to be let into the EEC, but France’s General de Gaulle kept saying ‘No’ (or whatever the French for that is). ‘Sixties Farage' would have decried these obstructive continentals, and demanded entry into their cosy private club. How dare these pesky foreigners tell us what to do. If we weren’t in the EU, UKIP would be demanding we be let in.

David Cameron also thinks that the EU is imperfect, and the best option for Britain is to improve it, and stay in. What eminent good sense. But for some reason, Cameron will only allow himself one attempt at improving it. He is giving European reform one last go, but doesn’t mention this is also his first go. If it doesn’t become what the government wants, we will move towards leaving. Cameron’s motto on European reform is, ‘If at first you don’t succeed, quit immediately.’

The UK has done precious little to improve the EU. Before this government, there has been little political will to push for change. During this government, we have seen a prime minister who would rather go home halfway through a summit than influence discussions positively. Neither approach has given EU reform a serious go. Cameron’s attitude is, “Well I’ve tried absolutely nothing - what else is there is to do? I’m at the end of my tether.”

EU reform is a laudable aim. It is an organisation which has repeatedly failed to get its books signed off by its own anti-corruption arm, and frequently behaves with questionable priorities. But reforming it is a lifetime’s work. Any politician genuinely committed to making the EU better would see that the job must be done inch by inch, month by month. It would also be done by engagement, not posturing and flouncing off.

Cameron is prepared to do anything to make the EU work for Britain. As long as it happens straightaway and with minimal effort. He has the mentality of an 11-year-old, frustrated that he still can’t play the Flight of the Bumble Bee, even though he’s owned a flute for, like, hours. 

Either that or his fides are not entirely bona - he wants failure, but he doesn’t want the failure to reflect on him. Except, that is, from the people who would consider the failure a success, and then he’s eager to take the credit. The EU is a genuinely complex area, with strong feelings on both sides. Cameron wants to be the darling of the eurosceptics, without alienating moderate opinion. In other words, he wants to be popular with two sworn enemies. It’s not going to work.