EU FLANNEL

Tony Blair’s recent speech to the EU parliament has certainly stirred up a strong reaction from virtually all sections of the political spectrum. What is astounding is the totally diverse interpretation of the speech and the fact that many have hailed it as being eurosceptic, when in fact it is the opposite.

Even the allegedly anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) has offered its support for Tony Blair’s agenda.

‘If you can reform the European Union, Mr Blair, then I may even change my mind, I may even think it’s worth us staying a member,’ swooned Nigel Farage MEP, the UKIP leader in the EU parliament. Mr Farage hailed Mr Blair as being ‘the only European leader who understands why France and Holland voted no’ to the EU constitution!

UKIP’s support for Mr Blair at this critical juncture should not be underestimated, as it gives credence to Labour’s EU policy as the UK assumes the presidency and in the aftermath of the rejection of the constitution by France and Holland. Apparently, Labour’s EU policy is such a wonder to behold that UKIP might even reverse its policy that the UK should leave the EU.

So what was it in Phony Tony’s speech that had UKIP gushing and may even lead to that party abandoning its principles? Below are a handful of extracts which reveal the true nature of Mr Blair’s agenda:

‘This is a union of values, of solidarity between nations and people, of not just a common market in which we trade but a common political space in which we live as citizens.

It always will be.

I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong and caring social dimension. I would never accept a Europe that was simply an economic market.’

The language is as plain as its message. Mr Blair intends to continue to promote the creation of a political EU and not just a free-trade zone. He is opposed to the EU being only a free-trade zone.

‘There are two possible explanations. One is that people studied the Constitution and disagreed with its precise articles. I doubt that was the basis of the majority 'no'. This was not an issue of bad drafting or specific textual disagreement.

The other explanation is that the Constitution became merely the vehicle for the people to register a wider and deeper discontent with the state of affairs in Europe. I believe this to be the correct analysis.
If so, it is not a crisis of political institutions, it is a crisis of political leadership. People in Europe are posing hard questions to us. They worry about globalisation, job security, about pensions and living standards. They see not just their economy but their society changing around them. Traditional communities are broken up, ethnic patterns change, family life is under strain as families struggle to balance work and home.’

The people of Europe are not ‘posing hard questions’. They are telling the ruling classes that they do not want the political EU which is being rammed down their throats. They do not want the EU constitution. This is a ‘specific textual disagreement’.

Mr Blair refers to a whole raft of issues, none of which are the EU’s business. The EU should not be meddling with matters such as pensions. Far from understanding the reasons for the rejection of the constitution, Mr Blair is trying to reinterpret those rejections to suit his own political agenda.

‘What would a different policy agenda for Europe look like?

First, it would modernise our social model. Again some have suggested I want to abandon Europe's social model. But tell me: what type of social model is it that has 20m unemployed in Europe, productivity rates falling behind those of the USA; that is allowing more science graduates to be produced by India than by Europe; and that, on any relative index of a modern economy - skills, R&D, patents, IT, is going down not up. India will expand its biotechnology sector fivefold in the next five years. China has trebled its spending on R&D in the last five.

Of the top 20 universities in the world today, only two are now in Europe.

The purpose of our social model should be to enhance our ability to compete, to help our people cope with globalisation, to let them embrace its opportunities and avoid its dangers. Of course we need a social Europe. But it must be a social Europe that works.’

Once again, Mr Blair is openly setting out his determination that the EU should remain committed to a political agenda, and not become a free-trade zone. His rhetoric betrays a socialist viewpoint, as he sees EU quangos and EU-wide government as a solution to individual countries’ lack of competitiveness. The EU is too diverse and it is absurd to expect the comparatively backward former communist countries of eastern Europe to have the same economic policies as western Europe.

By the term ‘social Europe’, Mr Blair really means a socialist Europe.

‘Migration has doubled in the past 20 years. Much of the migration is healthy and welcome. But it must he managed. Illegal immigration is an issue for all our nations, and a human tragedy for many thousands of people. It is estimated that 70 per cent of illegal immigrants have their passage facilitated by organised crime groups. Then there is the repugnant practice of human trafficking whereby organised gangs move people from one region to another with the intention of exploiting them when they arrive. Between 600,000 and 800,000 people are trafficked globally each year. Every year over 100,000 women are victims of trafficking in the European Union.’

Mr Blair is not opposing mass immigration, although he is presenting illegal immigrants as if they are the victims of organised crime rackets, when in fact the majority of them are exploiting those rackets in order to gain entry into the EU, and into the UK in particular.

It is to be expected that UKIP would support this stance, given that it too believes in mass immigration.

The solution to the UK’s immigration problems can and should be solved by the UK government. This is not a matter for the EU, which has proved itself so abysmally incompetent anyway. Britain is an island and it is therefore different to the continental countries many of which, such as France, have been happy to allow illegal immigrants to pass through their territories on their way to the UK.

When 70% of immigrants have used organised crime rackets, then the solution is to close down those crime rackets by cutting off the supply of money to them - ie by ending mass immigration and ending so-called asylum seeking.

‘A strong Europe would be an active player in foreign policy, a good partner of course to the US but also capable of demonstrating its own capacity to shape and move the world forward.’

Mr Blair is openly setting out his support for the EU developing its own foreign policy, which the constitution envisaged involving a new diplomatic service and a foreign minister.

The electors have rejected this and Mr Blair should respect their wishes. The British people should be allowed their own referendum before Labour commits the UK to any of this.

‘It would be a Europe confident enough to see enlargement not as a threat, as if membership were a zero sum game in which old members lose as new members gain, but an extraordinary, historic opportunity to build a greater and more powerful union. Because be under no illusion: if we stop enlargement or shut out its natural consequences, it wouldn't, in the end, save one job, keep one firm in business, prevent one delocalisation. For a time it might but not for long. And in the meantime Europe will become more narrow, more introspective and those who garner support will be those not in the traditions of European idealism but in those of outdated nationalism and xenophobia. But I tell you in all frankness: it is a contradiction to be in favour of liberalising Europe's membership but against opening up its economy.’

One of the main reasons why the people of France and Holland rejected the constitution was their opposition to further enlargement. In particular, they did not wish to see Turkey admitted into the EU. Mr Blair does not intend to take any notice at all of this fact. He intends to ram on with the admission of Turkey whether the people like it or not.

How anyone can laud this speech as being eurosceptic, or setting out a reform agenda, is beyond comprehension. Politicians and journalists have presumably fallen for the behind the scenes hype rather than using their own critical faculties.

The Times had a double page spread entitled ‘Britain is blowing a wind of change across Europe’. Since it is a matter of fact that all proposed legislation and reform must be initiated by the Brussels Commission and not the EU parliament nor ministers, Britain is not in a position to bring about sweeping changes. The Times is merely parroting Labour propaganda.

If Mr Blair’s speech to the EU parliament was insufficiently clear to the more excitable, then there is also the interview he gave to Le Monde last Thursday. Regarding the constitution he said:

‘I continue to think that the Constitution is a set of rules perfectly apt for Europe to function better. We will have to reflect on it again. The problem is that the people have said to the politicians: we will not let you adopt this text until you begin to respond to our daily problems. They did not vote 'no' because of this or that article (in the constitution).’

Once again, the language is as clear as the message. Mr Blair rejects the notion that the voters of France and Holland voted against the constitution. It is also clear that he intends to press on with the provisions of the constitution - one way or another.

‘Some German politicians are claiming that I want a Europe that is only about free-trade. I want the very opposite. I support a political dimension to Europe.’

Again, the language is as plain as the message. Mr Blair is fully committed to the UK being ruled by the EU. This should not come as a shock. He is a socialist and believes in big government. He has consistently increased taxes and government spending in the UK to such an extent that according to the OECD, UK public spending will have increased from 37.5% of GDP in 2000 to a whopping 45.2% next year. This increase will have brought public spending from being 9.6% below the Euro-zone average to being only 2.2% below next year.

Mr Blair is not a reformer, or a free-trader, or a free market liberal. He is a socialist and he will not reform the EU. He will simply repackage the EU agenda.

What is needed is a campaign to get the UK out of the EU. The opportunity offered by the rejection of the constitutional proposals is being squandered. This was not a time for UKIP to be gushing over Labour’s pro-EU, pro-euro, and pro-constitutional manoeuvring.

UKIP has betrayed those who voted for it and has betrayed this country.

Thankfully, UKIP does not have a monopoly on a policy of withdrawal from the EU. The English Democrats Party also believes in withdrawal.

What we want is to be able to trade with the EU and not be ruled by the EU.