EU hokey-cokey: in, out, shake it all about (not necessarily in that order)
|
Version 0 of 1. If anyone was surprised at Boris Johnson’s suggestion that there might need to be two EU referendums (Johnson courted by both sides in EU debate, 9 October), they should have a look at article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This says any member state wishing to withdraw shall have a two-year period of negotiation (extendable if needed) on the terms for withdrawal and future relationships. This opens some interesting possibilities, as Johnson has realised. If David Cameron wins a referendum for staying in on his negotiated terms, article 50 is irrelevant. But if he loses, there can be two further years of negotiation. These would presumably focus on future relationships on trade, continuing contributions like those required of Norway and Switzerland for access to the common market, and perhaps even some aspects of free movement of people and capital. Those who suspect that Cameron may give too much away on social, employment and environmental protections might feel that a second, more public process of negotiation might focus on such issues, not least the worrying commitment of the European commission to neoliberal economics. In this scenario, the serious negotiations might actually take place after an initial no vote. The EU is notoriously prone to expect countries to have another vote if, like Ireland, Denmark and France, they get it wrong first time round. And in Europe there is always time to postpone final decisions until better sense prevails. Most EU member states want the UK to stay in and may be willing to accept a better deal for those outside the euro. A two-treaty Europe might be the best outcome all round.Tom HaddenEmeritus professor of law, Queen’s University Belfast; honorary professor, Kent Law School • How refreshing to read Zoe Williams (The in campaign should sell Europe as the Star Trek state, 12 October) and Caroline Lucas (The EU needs reforming, not abandoning, Letters, 12 October). The debate thus far – if it can be called that – is so limited and so dull. Those for leaving are boringly predictable and mostly reactionary (with a few on the left who seem to think that moving backwards and out is moving forwards); reason enough to vote to stay in! But the “stay” vote needs more than that, and more than is currently on offer. It needs, as Williams suggests, optimism, hope and a real sense of purpose. I want a Europe based on social justice, greater equality both of opportunity and outcome, redistribution and, yes, more transparency and democracy. Whatever came of a social Europe? I reckon there’s a big majority out there for precisely this agenda. So let’s see the “progressives” making the case for these changes. Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party have an opportunity here, allied with other progressives, to offer a completely different Europe to the current inadequate one: a reformed one based on social solidarity and social justice. Come on. Show the way. Raise the level!Jol MiskinSheffield • There are three, not two, credible options for UK membership of the EU. First, to stay in on the current membership terms. Second, to stay in on revised terms agreed with the EU. Third, to leave. The first option is probably supported by a significant minority of voters who would be alarmed if David Cameron succeeded under the second in loosening our ties with the EU, and might even support “ever closer union”. The remain campaign seems to have no clear stance on these matters, confining itself at its launch to weary platitudes as Polly Toynbee says (Remain’s anaemic launch should alarm pro-Europeans, 13 October). We need to know soon exactly where this campaign stands. Is it simply lining up behind Cameron’s short-term politicking (in which case what are Labour and trade union people doing in it)? Or will it genuinely speak up for the UK’s long-term national interest?Robin WendtChester • Those who like me are in their 90s, who grew up in the shadow of the Great War and then experienced the ’39-’45 one as adults, remember or were taught that Europe was a jigsaw of nations constantly at war with each other for economic or religious reasons. Surely we cannot wish to vote against our hard-won union after all those centuries of conflict. Certainly it is an imperfect union, but it is possible to reform it if the will is there. I believe that it is too valuable to be destroyed in a fit of resentment, pique or disillusion. I sincerely hope that my fellow oldies and others will consider the cruelties and disasters of past centuries and vote to stay in a reformed organisation.Ruth KarnacRuislip, Middlesex • Isn’t it ironic that Stuart Rose should appeal to our patriotism as a way of getting us to vote to stay in the European Union (We’re the patriots, Rose to tell pro-EU campaign launch, 12 October) on the very day that we are commemorating Edith Cavell, who said as she was led to her execution by the Germans in 1915 that “patriotism is not enough” (Report, 12 October). Indeed it is not enough – would it not be better if we could all think in terms of internationalism, rather than in terms of wanting to do what is “best for Britain”? Am I just being too idealistic?Tom RiddlesHeckmondwike, West Yorkshire • Stuart Rose perhaps needs to be reminded of Samuel Johnson’s remark: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”Tim GosslingCambridge |