tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27932062.post2528594779984306613..comments2023-10-10T15:39:35.168+00:00Comments on Centre for European Reform: Britain’s eurosceptics need to come cleanCentre for European Reformhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06815454225955436329noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27932062.post-35720175909533436932009-07-09T15:03:30.579+00:002009-07-09T15:03:30.579+00:00This argument tends to hover at the level of polic...This argument tends to hover at the level of policy, whose influence on and by nationality is incidental and oppositional. It may seem rather petty and vulgar for the Centre for European Reform - 'improving the quality of debate', whatever that means - but the question of nationality and state interest is, of course, at the heart of the debate. So the question is assumed to be, how can Britain assert its own national interests at the European level. <br /><br />This post criticises Britain's self-interest in withdrawing from the European Union ('the UK [believes it] can have its cake and eat it'), whilst arguing Britain can be best served by further asserting its national interests within the future European market. Perhaps Britain's traditionally associated pragmatism and empiricism has lead it to the conclusion of relinquishment of EU membership. Perhaps, conversely, this will force it to support EU membership and assert its national interests in an ever-extending politico-economic forum. Either way, appealing to national interest cannot be the panacea for Britain’s troubled relationship with the EU: one scenario necessarily excludes the other.<br /><br />It is wrong and divisive for pro-Europeans (and Eurosceptics) to argue for enlightened national interest without the ‘obligation to be honest about the economic implications’ of a deepening and widening of the Union, which precludes any influence of a national interest in a future Europe. The debate should thus begin, not from the assumption of opposition and difference, but by setting out the benefits of the EU project beyond the narrow benefits, economic or otherwise, to individual member states.<br /><br />To quote J. Derrida and J. Habermas’s article ‘After the War: the Rebirth of Europe’ (31 May 2003, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung): ‘All of us imagine a peaceful, cooperative Europe that is open to other cultures and capable of dialogue. We remind ourselves that in the second half of the 20th century, Europe has found prototypical solutions for two problems. The EU presents itself as a form of “governing beyond the national state,” that could serve as an example as a post-national constellation. [...] At the level of the national state, however, it has been forced into the defensive. But the level of social justice that the welfare state has attained should not be abandoned in any future politics of the taming of capitalism. Why shouldn’t a Europe that has solved such enormous problems also take on the challenge of developing and defending a cosmopolitan order on the basis of international law?’ The real decision Britain must make is whether it wants, in the future, 'governing beyond the national state'.Liamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00064705882485163904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27932062.post-38139624963720528312009-06-25T17:51:04.178+00:002009-06-25T17:51:04.178+00:00Let those who propose we leave the EU set out the ...Let those who propose we leave the EU set out the terms of the exit treaty that would be acceptable.<br />Let them also promise we should have a referendum on the proposed exit treaty.John Harmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02932612785777643089noreply@blogger.com