With the date set for the in, out referendum it seems fitting to try and give a brief explanation of our relationship with Europe. The EU is forged together by four major bodies: The European Commission(A), The European Parliament (B), The Council of the European Union (C), and The Court of Justice(D). It would be beyond this paper to try and detail what is the function, and role, of each. But briefly, A is the driving force behind the union, "responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties and managing the day-to-day business of the EU" [1]; B directly elected people, representing the union, The Parliament is composed of 751 members [2]. C comprising member states/national governments, "While the European Council has no formal legislative power, it is a strategic (and crisis-solving) body that provides the union with general political directions and priorities" [3]. D "is the highest court in the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its equal application across all EU member states"[4]
As you can see, a complex set of institutions, all with a multitude of functions, and many overlaps. To my mind, this is one of the biggest turn offs (knowing what is done, by who, and for what reason) for the EU project.
Where we are today. As it stands, make no mistake, the EU is a body wishing to progress down a path of integration, full integration encompassing: economic, social and military. In fact, many of Europe's problems are blamed solely on a 'lack of integration'. As such, further integration is seen as the answer to many of the EU problems. Only recently, Jean-Claude Junker
called for the formation of a European Army Such a bad thing? with the rise of China, and Russia once again flexing her muscles.
But where does this leave the UK. Cameron has returned from many months of negotiations, initially promising the world but ending with something less than watered down. On his promise of no further treaty integration for the UK, has he delivered? Cameron has secured, "Sovereignty - There is an explicit commitment that the UK will not be part of an "ever closer union" with other EU member states. This will be incorporated in an EU treaty change" [5] In essence, this ensures (by signing into a treaty) the UK will not integrate further. Intuitively, it looks impressive, but it does absolutely zero for everything we're already signed up to! So draw your own conclusion on what has actually been delivered. To my mind, it does two things: if you're already a Eurosceptic you have won nothing back, and can only hope our situation within Europe does not get worse. And, if you're a Europhile you'll be left wanting, in the sense that there will be no more prospect of treaty driven integration. Thus, for some, our half baked 'not properly in Europe, or not totally severed' relationship remains. As such, who will in-fact be satisfied.
Now for that vexed topic, immigration! or refugees!, or asylum seekers!, Because no longer do we differentiate between categories of people. Not wanting to go off on a tangent, world events have turned the movement of people (for a multitude of reasons) into a toxic, maelstrom of invective discourse. We have those on the left or should I say 'authoritarian left' wishing to supplant national borders with a policy (I use the word policy, very loosely) of let everyone who wishes, enter into any country of their pleasing. The response, often knee jerk, is for the right to invoke feelings of 'mass panic' amongst the population. In truth, amidst this confusion and 'moral panic' there is room for sensible policy, and discussion. It is not 'racist' to be concerned about: public services, finite resources, job insecurity, hospital care, school places etc. Moreover, it is not 'bigoted' or 'ethnocentric' to question the motive, religion or ethnicity of certain groups, where a track record proves next to no integration, in the normative sense. YES, I've digressed.
So Cameron's answer to all this, is curb in-work benefits for those who are legally allowed to work in this country; Underwhelmed? You should be. To be fair, should those working here be allowed to send home child benefit if the child does not reside in the UK? No. So what have we secured, "Child benefit payments to migrant workers for children living overseas to be recalculated to reflect the cost of living in their home countries" [5] Obviously, this will mean a reduction in the amount we pay.
All-in-all, when you join a club, you expect to pay for that privilege; and that's the basics of the EU. You're in a club, you have to pay. Now you can argue all day long that we pay to much, no different to all the other national governments. As one of the 'richer nations' of course we pay more than some; and that money is redistributed to poorer regions. Don't think for one minute, leaving the EU will suddenly make the UK a utopia, not a chance. Like I've said previously, if immigration is your beef, then why has in-ward migration to the UK from outside of the EU, gone up? This has nothing to do with the EU, suggesting we cannot get to grips with our own border policy. Conversely, if we leave the EU it puts those Brits who've moved to the EU in a precarious position. Because of course, immigration works both ways. To my mind, the strongest reason for voting to leave, is the lack of accountability and the diluting of sovereign power. To date, I'm undecided.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice
[5] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887
