By Brian Duggan
In The Road to Wigan Pier, George Orwell wrote that without the empire Britain would be, "...a cold and unimportant little island where we should all have to work very hard and live mainly on herrings and potatoes."
While the empire may have crumbled and the recession is hitting our food costs, we haven't yet been reduced to an existing of herrings and potatoes.
The reality for Britain and the rest of the world in the twenty first century is that the authority shifted away from the old colonial empires moved towards a better, more balanced model. New regional and global institutions were founded to improve trade, foster better diplomacy, tackle world poverty, and address economic disparities and so on.
The world replaced its old hierarchies of power with a broader network of institutions set to govern the interaction of our nations. These institutions were founded to address the changing nature of the world. As well as ensuring that the British diet consisted of much more than just herrings and potatoes they helped forge a more equal and secure relationship between the nations of the world.
One organistion which has done much for British trade, jobs and standing in the world is the European Union. A key component of Labour's European policy has been to recongise that the EU is more than just a market to trade with and that it should be used to strengthen Britain's role in the world.
But pro-Europeans within the Labour movement must all recognise that 'Europe' as an institution, like 'Westminster' or 'No 10 Downing Street', is not a vote winner on polling day. The process and the mechanism for achieving the policy is not the point. The policy, the progress and the outcome is what Labour should be talking about.
British voters stand much to lose if a Tory government were to represent Britain in Europe again. Many of today's Tories are obsessed by 'process Europe' and rarely by 'policy Europe'. Labour has shown strong influence on the European stage, both within the centre left and on the centre right, and has acted with those who want to tackle our energy and climate policies, to forge a fair way out of the economic crisis, to protect us from threats of terrorism, to continue to build a European economic area of shared prosperity and stable growth and to promote a positive agenda for the developing world.
The Tories meanwhile are alienated on the wrong side of the argument. Their position on Europe may not lead us to Orwell's predicted diet but the prospect of being an "unimportant little island" certainly could ring true.
For the General Election in 2010, my cause to fight for will be to keep Britain strong in Europe and strong in the world, not because I want to wear a blue flag with gold stars, but because I believe that the world has changed since the fall of the empires and that to achieve for one nation, you have to work with others.
Labour's foreign policy is a policy for a better Britain and a fairer world and that's a cause well worth fighting for.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Did you mean Hain on Question Time as opposed to newsnight? If so then I agree he came across badly. He was in a position of having to defend Blair's decision to go to Iraq when he is now aware that it was a done deal before he and his cabinet colleagues were agreeing to it. You could plainly see that even he didn't agree with the words that were coming out of his mouth!
Lewis
Do you really want to pursue this Iraq argument again? I seem to remember you having your tail between your legs only last week on this one! :-)
I didn't have my tail between my legs, I am only too proud to stand by the Iraqi people in my arguments and tackle the sordid apologists for totalitarian dictatorships who opposed the war. You're right about one thing though, I didn't want to pursue the Iraq war argument on this page because it is strictly speaking off-topic, but I simply couldn't stand by and let the usual naive, uninformed falsehoods about Iraq be peddled on here! I didn't bring it up!
I say once again, anyone who opposed the war has to come out and explicitly say that they were prepared to leave the Iraqi people to the facistic whims of Saddam Hussein and his even more odious sons Uday and Qusay, deny them the chance to hold free democractic elections, leave the Kurdish people under the threat of extermination, and deny the Kurds the President which they now have in Jalal Talabani, a man who all Labour supporters should revere as an heroic freedom-fighter and fellow member of the Socialist International. Strangely enough, noone has yet been brave enough to admit these things, and yet they still propogate the myth that the anti-war movement was progressive! There was nothing progressive about abrogating our responsibilites to the weak and vulnerable of the world. The anti-war movement was the vehicle for callous, right-wing isolationism, and it has no place in the tradition of left-wing, progressive internationalism.
Since at least some of those nations are democratic but the "network of institutions" is undemocratic, how is it legitimate for the latter to "govern the interaction" of the former?
I'll never speak for the Tories but I can speak for at least some EU-sceptics. We are obsessed with process, you're right. But not in the sense you may think. The EU's political processes have the form of a democracy. But form isn't enough. I don't want to vote for MPs so they can rubber-stamp policies previously rubber-stamped by MEPs that in substance were written by Commissioners and bureaucrats. I don't want the form of a democracy, I want the substance of one.
And as for the obvious implication of 'policy Europe', sorry but I do care about the process. I don't care if today's policies happen to be agreeable to my point of view, not if the means by which those policies are affected is undemocratic. For one thing, I have no guarantee that laws in future will be to my liking. More importantly, it is wrong in principle that the law should be determined in an undemocratic way.
The laws of the land should be determined democratically by elected representatives. Not bureaucrats, not Commissioners and not unelected Presidents and never-in-their-lifetime-elected "foreign ministers". The laws should be conceived, drafted, discussed and formalised in a Parliament by people who can be slung out when they do something we don't like. I want to hear a meaningful public debate about irksome little issues like those bloody stupid new light bulbs through to big issues like immigration from Eastern Europe or the environment. We can only have a meaningful discussion if our discussion has any consequence. At the moment it doesn't, because however us tossers here on Labour List vote, the MEPs don't control what goes on in Brussels and Brussels dominates Westminster.
Would you say those ideals and values are enhanced by EU membership?
I'd suggest that it is precisely those ideals and values that you claim would make us a genuine power in the world that are at the root of opposition to the EU - democracy, sovereignty, representation etc etc. After all, it'd be hard to go lecturing other countries about representative democracy whilst supporting the largely unelected and pretty much unaccountable political oligarchy that is the EU.
The EU is popular with Labour because it's a great place to send useless former colleagues into the miasma of EU politics. A Strong Britain in the EU is a strong Britain where the EU makes 70% of our laws.
The UK withdraw from the EU and join the EEA, we would be free to trade with the EU but also on our terms with the rest of the world.
In per capita terms it would be cheaper.
The UK would gain back numerous areas of legislation to suit the UK, not the EU yet preserving the Single Market and Schengen accords for law and order and cross-border co-operation.
In terms of CAP, we would be able to grow what we wanted and able to export and import foodstuffs without CAP tariffs making our food cheaper.
A strong Britain then would make 80% of its law, keep the 20% of EU law with the most direct benefit. The UK could then pursue its own interests to the benefit of its people.
I opposed the Iraq war because there where no wmds and it was against internatiol law, As did the lib dems and a lot of our backbenchers (and to be fair a couple of torys) , To take your example we should invade many places round the world , say china? because of there abuse of human rights, But wait we dont , instead isnt Mr Pesscott a ambasserder of some title he got from the Chinesse.
Danny
I doubt whether the argument that it was against international law stands up. After all, Iraq had violated the non-proliferation treaty (through its refusal to cooperate with inspectors) and deliberately had the world believe it had WMDs. Following the invasion, global networks were discovered in Iraq that proved it was actively seeking weapons, contrary to popular belief and the simplistic media narrative. Nevertheless, I admit the justification for war was made on an exaggeration, but the justification plenty of people (including Iraqis) made for invasion since 1991 had nothing to do with WMDs. They had everything to do with the urgent need to remove Saddam from power. I say again, as an opponent of the war, you have to say categorically that you were willing to leave the Iraqi people to the fascistic whims of a dictator, and leave the Kurds under the perpetual threat of extermination.
Of course there are other countries on earth with at least as bad a record on human rights. The example you give of China is particularly salient. However, it is not a fair comparison. Clearly, war with China is not an option (although there should be more concerted action to change things there). The difference is that in Iraq we had it in our power to remove Saddam. Do you think we could remove the Chinese Communist Party so easily? No, of course not, and so different techniques are required there. Basically, the anti-war logic seems to be "oh well, we can't change injustice everywhere in the world, so we'd better not change it anywhere in the world". Frankly, I think this logic is callous.
A fairer comparison could be made between Iraq and the Sudan. In Sudan, we did it the way the anti-warrers wanted it. We used diplomacy, we compromised, we bought time. In the end we were to late and millions died because of our inaction. That is what happens when the west is too timid and is afraid of being accused of imperialism.
What number do you personally put on civillians killed by our actions?
How did Milliband give China Tibet? The invasion was 1949.
Nobody wanted to challenge China then and nobody is going to do so today.
Good point. All governments operate within the constraints of history, and these mean that they can't tackle every injustice that has ever occured. However, this doesn't mean that they shouldn't try to redress any injustices, even though this seems to be the creed of the anti- Iraq war movement!
Just a little postscript here as well. The Free Tibet movement is a proud and noble cause, but I think some people over-romanticise the issue, as is often the case with idealistic ultra-leftists. The regime in Tibet prior to the 1949 invasion, whilst infinitely more desirable than the oppressive Beijing regime in power currently, was an unelected, heriditary monarchy. Given the fact that many campaigners for Tibet normally oppose such regimes, this seems something of an oddity. Now, this doesn't of course take-away from the fact that the Free Tibet cause is just, and anyone involved with it should be proud, but it highlights yet another case of a complex issue being romanticised, over-simplified, even fetishized by people who seem only to be able to see the world in terms of a simplistic historical narrative.
If Wee Eck gets his way then Scotland will soon have its own representation in the EU. The best way for that to happen is for Labour to carry on with its present attitude that Holyrood does not exist, is not important, requires less than second rate Labour representation with its parochial parish pump politics and Westminster still rules - OK!
How can you justify your comments 'strong in the world' when the main way of achieving that aim is being cut to the bone with only one effective aircraft carrier and 25 ships, post 2014? Then there are the proposed 10,000 reduction in land forces and the RAF being forced to use an aircraft - the Typhoon - in a role it was never designed for because Gordon will not pay for the Lockheed F35 Vstol fighter ground/attack as was promised by Blair. World diplomacy still remains; speak softly but carry a big stick!
Strong in Europe - how? Blair, Mandelson et al have ensured we are now the laughing stock with as much influence as Latvia (no offence to any Latvians).
Without noticing it, New Labour have already achieved Orwell's description with its fixation with its financial pals in the City of London.
You've made a couple of interesting points, but I think your suggestion that cutting the defence budget is the "main way" of reducing Britain's strength in the world rests on an outdated an misplaced assumption. It isn't naive to say that in the modern age, particulary given the existence of nuclear weapons, Britain's "strength" rests at least as much on the power of our ideals and values as it does on our military capabilities. In this context, a huge defence capability is not necessarily a sign of strength.
That said, I acknowledge the fact that the defence forces are woefully underresourced, and this neglect is all the more disgraceful for the fact that it is happening when more is being demanded of the armed forces than ever before.
On your final point, it is a falsehood to suggest that Britain is on a par with Latvia in terms of influence within the EU. If that were true, why were Sarkozy and Merkel so incensed that Cameron withdrew the Tories from the centre-right grouping and joined with a bunch of insignificants, in a shallow ploy to placate the grassroots of his own party? If we were such an insignificant nation, surely France and Germany wouldn't have batted an eyelid? Any missed opportunities for Britain in the EU have been the fault of deluded, narrow-minded xenophopes. That is not to say that every Eurosceptic is a xenophobe; many have genuine fears about the loss of sovereignty to a supra-national institution. Nevertheless, it is true to say that those fears are mostly unfounded, and are propogated by extremist rabble-rousers.
"Labour's foreign policy is a policy for a better Britain and a fairer world and that's a cause well worth fighting for."
Tell that to the 600,000 dead Iraqis and the familys of our solders.
Onto Europe , are you suggesting that only torys are anti europe? I have never voted tory but i am anti europe , The waste of money , The acounts , the lies of the lisbon treaty , The President has no mandate , nor Baroness Aston , they were chosen through neogation not by the ballot box , The eu is as undemcratic as it can be , thats why most voters want a change in the postion .
But obvisly the author of this piece says i cant vote labour because i am anti europe , does this mean that the 30 odd labour party mps that voted against the whips and with the torys for a referendum will be expelled from the party? No this is hypocrasy of the highest level .
danny
I know we've had this discussion before, but I simply cannot let that misrepresentation of the Iraq war lie. What about the millions of Iraqis who have, for the first time, been able to vote in free elections? Or the millions of Kurds who have, for the first time in half a century, been freed from the perpetual threat (and often, reality) of massacre and extermination? Now, Iraq has a Kurdish President in Jalal Talabani, a breakthrough that ranks alongside the election of Barack Obama as a symbol of the breakdown of racial barriers in politics. None of this would have happened without the invasion. If you opposed the Iraq war, you have to be completely honest and admit that by doing so, you were prepared to allow these atrocities and injustices to continue.
I don't belittle the costs of this war by the way, but it seems to me that sometimes, opponents of the war would only think a war was worth fighting if it resulted in no casualties whatsoever, and this is naive. It is also wrong to characterise it as an imperial invasion. That does a great disservice to the Iraqis who fought a war of resistance against Saddam for years before our arrival. The war was not principally between Iraq and the West, but between the Iraqi people and the extremist bullies who had kept them under the cosh for decades. We had an obligation to stand by those people.
Peter Hain on Newsnight last night seemed very very angry with us all, I wonder what we've done to upset him as well.
No LL posters were harmed during the making of this post (o;
Now Britain is a bit part of a bigger bloc that does nothing for its voice on the world stage - as Obama's recent antics have demonstrated wonderfully.
One would hope that the fact that the issue is not a vote winner on polling day might lead some to the belief that, in a democratic society, this might have some relevance when it comes to policy formation. Evidently not. Was ever thus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Communities_Act_1972_(UK)
Ted Heath (Cons) was PM at the time
"These institutions were founded to address the changing nature of the world. As well as ensuring that the British diet consisted of much more than just herrings and potatoes they helped forge a more equal and secure relationship between the nations of the world."
They also did nothing to prevent a neo-colonial invasion of Iraq. Labour leaders have no mandate to discuss international affairs without dealing with Iraq in their argument. The failure to learn this will be one of the things that costs them the election.
Many people, including myself feel we've been forced to be in the EU. It has no democratic legitimacy.
I think that Labour needs to change it's focus as we are interested in future jobs, not all this flim flam.