eurealist.co.uk

This week Britain’s Parliament is finally beginning to debate the European Union’s new constitution. This will mark the start of a slow but profoundly important process that could, by the end of 2006, see Britain close to leaving the EU. This would be an extraordinary turning point in British foreign policy and a major weakening of its international influence.

So says Dr Kirsty Hughes in the International Herald Trubune in an article “The skeptics could push Britain out of the EU” Hughes argues that…

“A British “no” is highly likely to reflect a general anti-EU vote by the British public, not a disagreement with specific constitutional elements. So there will be no tweaking of the new rules that could allow a second vote. Nor is it possible for Britain to stay in the union and opt out of the constitution”.

Of course there would be no Constitution if we voted No, so there is no chance of opting out. Hughes goes on to lambaste Tony Blair because he has “failed in almost all aspects of his European policy. He has failed to make Britain a leader in the EU, not least since the country still maintains its opt-outs on two major policy issues - the euro and the border-free Schengen zone.”

“Britain’s pro-Europeans are in disarray - hamstrung by the government’s desire to keep the issue off the agenda for now, by differences over how to sell the EU to the public and by a lack of confidence and money. Blair and his colleagues take a line that dangerously accepts much of the skeptic position - arguing that the constitution limits the powers of an otherwise rampant, interfering “Brussels.” Business and unions are noticeable by their silence. Meanwhile, the anti-Europeans are well funded, highly motivated and already in third gear”.

Ah so sorry to wish to have a debate on the nature of our involvement with this Union which we were told would only be a trading block. I understand that for the EU intergrationalist the people should not be given a chance to speak, and all this should be left to those who understand what is best for us.

“It seems that the government hopes that a short, sharp campaign, presenting the issue as a vote for being either in or out of the EU, will win the day. The British public aren’t too keen on Europe, but they’re even less keen - so Labour hopes - on being left out of things. It is a minimalist and perilous strategy. If 24 member states vote yes, a “no” from Britain could see it in a special partnership with the EU by 2007 - no longer a member proper”.

The question is not about in or out it is about accepting or rejecting the EU Constitution if we vote No we will still be in the union as will any other country that votes No.

“The implications for Britain are enormous. To stay in the single market, Britain, like Norway, would have to abide by the rules without being in on making them. It would no longer be part of nascent EU defense and foreign policy developments, nor could it influence EU policies from trade to development to counterterrorism strategies”.

This is yet to be decided, if we are not in the EU we can make our choices with whom we trade and which rules we will obey. Have these people never herd of international treaties, we could choose which suited us at what time on our own agenda not the Unions.

“In an extraordinary historical shift, Britain would retreat to the global sidelines, confused, nationalistic and rather powerless. This is the challenge for the “yes” side. It needs to be taken up immediately: The consequences of continued passivity are immense”.

No becoming a state in the “United States of Europe” would mean retreating to the global sidelines when was the last time the President of Texas had and international treaty agreement, we would increase our power, it is not possible to increase power by giving it away to a higher authority, and joint action is only in our interest if we agree to the action, if we do not then it is against our interests.