The Pro-European Reader

"I chose this as light reading but it’s a wonderful book. George Orwell must have written his little-known article in this at exactly the time he was working on 1984 . He wrote it for an anti-Communist, left-wing American magazine. In it, he envisages this very Orwellian dream—actually, ‘Orwellian’ is not the word to use about George Orwell himself—of a united, socialist Europe. Of course, it probably wasn’t going to happen. But I liked the way he sets out possibilities. First, there was going to be a nuclear war and the Americans wouldn’t be able to resist the temptation of using a Hiroshima bomb on the Russians. Then, he had the idea of there being a trans-Atlantic standoff between socialist Europe and capitalist America. “They think of sovereignty like virginity: either you have it or you don’t. He’s saying sovereignty is much more complicated than that.” The third possibility—which he said was the one he liked least of all—was that the bomb would so frighten people that it would never be used. Can you imagine? That would lead to the emergence of three world blocs: Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania—the three that he outlines in 1984. I loved that article by George Orwell because it’s such a historical oddity. The other ones I liked for a variety of different reasons. I liked the Neil Kinnock article because it reminded me that although he later became a European Commissioner back in 1975, when we had just joined the European Union and there was a referendum to approve membership, he campaigned against it. He then recanted a bit, in the article in this book, because he feared the consequences of the United Kingdom’s isolation from Europe. He hit that nail neatly on the head, in my opinion. Another article in the book that rang bells with me is by somebody who I’ve worked with on and off over the years: a British political scientist called Robert Cooper. He wrote the European security doctrine when he was working in Brussels. He argues that when the Berlin Wall fell, it was one of the most significant events in European history—more significant than 1789, 1815, or 1919 (presumably he’s talking about the Versailles Treaty). He said that it marked the end of balance of power politics in Europe, which is an interesting view. The other article I liked is by Geoffrey Howe. He’s the former foreign secretary, the one who rebelled against Margaret Thatcher. He writes about sovereignty. He says it causes huge confusion in people’s minds. They think of sovereignty like virginity: either you have it or you don’t. He’s saying sovereignty is much more complicated than that. That’s the button they push all the time, taking back control and all that stuff. Howe is pointing out that it’s complicated. It was written in 1991 and he’s also saying, ‘Look, it’s total nonsense to think that the British, through policies or by being inside or outside the EU, can veto European policies, especially not greater integration.’ Of course in 1991 the tide was moving strongly in favour of integration. The last article I wanted to point out is by Hugo Young, who used to work for the Guardian for a long time. Sadly, he died far too young. He’d written a very good book, called This Blessed Plot , about how the British establishment managed to get into the EU and be influential there, despite the grassroots refusal to be drawn into continental affairs. He talks about the ‘anti-Europe cave’, and how it’s claustrophobic. He headlined his article, “ Why I’m Glad To Be European “. I warmed to the sentiments in that. The first thing to say about that is that the British civil service is famous amongst the Europeans for what is known as ‘gold plating.’ They take something that’s been agreed at a European level and make it bigger and more prominent than it was ever meant to be. Somehow, one is more aware of EU-level rules because of this gold plating than is the case in other countries. The other thing is that there are two ways of looking at the European-level regulation. One is to say, ‘Right, this is Brussels: heavy-handed, unelected, faceless bureaucrats imposing rules on us.’ That’s one way of looking at it, and I think it’s totally wrong. “The European parliament isn’t a real parliament. It can’t raise taxes, or declare war, for instance, which is one of the key things that parliaments can do.” The other way, which I’m more sympathetic to, is to say, ‘Look, you’ve created a single market. The idea is that anybody can sell anything, anywhere in Europe, or buy it or whatever. That means you have to be very wary of non-tariff barriers, where different EU governments introduce sly rules on different things as a way of keeping neighbours’ goods or services out.’ That’s really what EU regulation—most of which comes from the European parliament—is about. As I said, it’s not a real parliament—but it’s an incredibly sophisticated machine for representing and reconciling different views, different needs, in areas you and I know nothing about: how you dip sheep in different countries to ensure that you can sell mutton across Europe, and so on and so forth. These are also having to be constantly updated. Now we’re in the middle of a digital revolution, or perhaps the middle of the start of one. The need for updated regulations is actually increasing and accelerating. My view tends to be that, yes, a lot is made of EU regulation. But the reality is that it’s the only way to have common rules that allow you to have common business practices and access to markets right across Europe. I think it’s a shame that this regulatory mechanism gets branded as heavy-handed. I think it would be much better if it were fairly invisible because, frankly, most of it’s pretty banal."