What do you think Brexit means?

–The European Union has developed from a trading bloc concept post second world war to the political union institution of today. It started as a trading proposal and then developed into a political union. The treaty of Lisbon 2007 replaced the EU’s key treaties — the 1957 Treaty of Rome primarily and conceptually a trading agreement, and the treaties of Maastricht (1992), Amsterdam (1996) and Nice (2000) Each step following on from the treaty of Rome has moved closer and closer to a federal Europe. Indeed the treaty of Lisbon is the accepted foundation of a Federal European Constitution.

The idea of a political and eventually a federal Europe has above all been the most effective way of keeping the peace in Europe, and in many ways expanding the idea of democracy to former communist and totalitarian states. This has undoubtedly been an enormous boon to the peaceful advance of Europe as a whole. The other benefits are that Europe has a much stronger voice in world affairs and much more clout when it comes to both soft and hard influence.

The Lisbon treaty has laid down the primacy of the European institutions over, (though shared in some limited issues), national sovereign governments. The European Union’s exclusive decision making encompasses the customs union, competition rules, monetary policy over euro members, common fisheries policy, commercial and international policies. This effectively means that the EU centre has primacy over all things regarding the internal market including, social policy, territorial cohesion, agriculture and fisheries, environment, consumer protection, transport trans-European network energy, freedom security and justice, public health.
Individual states are left with a much modified freedom of legislation. The greatest change has been the introduction of the Euro as a common currency, a massive operation that was implemented in a political euphoria that resulted in catastrophic economic consequences for the PIGS, (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain). Portugal has been the first to begin recovery from this catastrophic politically motivated financial change. The desire to spread the economic unity of a single currency remains one of the most intransigent issues which the EU faces. There are eleven currencies in the EU presently and all except two, UK and Denmark are bound to accept the Euro as their currency. The European Central Bank will therefore hold sway and all the member states who will eventually have to accede to fiscal union, i.e. The ECB will have the last word on budgets and thus austerity or expansion.

There are rules which govern the translation of national currencies to the Euro. Hopefully lessons of the past (Greece et al) will be learned. This is where many Euro sceptics shy away from the Federation idea, clearly to have a currency union will require the surrender of national decision making (sovereignty).

The other argument that is a worry to some, is the overall primacy of the EU in commercial policy. In the interests of the common customs union and other trading matters, the EU is defensive as well as enterprising. The EU whilst protecting its internal market, restricts access to other external markets and insists on unity of trading principles from all its members. Membership restricts members’ ability to exploit their individual specialist skills or knowledge – another Euro sceptic objection. Defence and Food industries (agriculture and fisheries) are two which are particularly sensitive to non-European opportunity.

Whilst the Pound Sterling remains outside the Euro, and the UK dominates the defence scene in Europe (which is quickly changing), the issues of international defence relationships are also vexed questions, particularly to the UK, which with France, is a permanent member of the Security Council. . The relationships of NATO and with the United States are confused with the EU aspiring to flex its own muscles on the world stage. Good or bad? Probably the former in the longer term, but there are serious issues with some member states who seem not prepared to invest in defence but still want the collective protection.

Many of the European states are keen to accept the democratic ideal, though several still have autocratic and populist aspirations. Here membership of the EU is an undoubted force for progressive good. However, the cumbersome nature of many national ideas is also a hindrance to unity and deftness to respond speedily in a very dangerous world. The strong will need to surrender their leadership international roles and be more sensitive to consensus politics. Leadership of the EU is now vested in France and Germany, how long will that be comfortable for the smaller nations.

One of the great planks of the European idea is freedom of movement and this was one of the emotive issues when the UK held its in/out referendum. The awareness of the good of immigration, has since dawned on the British public, and perhaps this has become a lesser-issue for many, but not for all. Control of our borders is a cry not only of the UK but many EU countries in the light of mass migration from the Middle East and Africa. This issue is not going to go away and seemingly will affect all nations for the foreseeable future.

The European Court of Justice is clearly an important pillar of European integration, there is much confusion in the minds of many that the Court is involved in minor admin, (e.g. the price and shape of bananas) and whilst no doubt the Brussels community is a humungous beurocracy the Court plays an essential role in the furtherance of judicial rules across the EU.

In this blog I have tried to draw attention to some of the pros and cons of the European dilemma. Not the British dilemma, which courts division, the breakup of the union, and much risk besides. One thing is for certain that if the UK leaves the EU it will have a detrimental effect both in the UK and the EU. There will be a shrinkage of the EU economy, and the UK which currently makes up 17% of the EU economy,will certainly find, at least in the short term, some very difficult issues in the financial services and agricultural industries in particular.

The possibility of the reunification of Ireland is a problem that nobody wants to face, yet it may be the only answer to the Irish problem. That would prove a detrimental financial blow to the Republic of Ireland and there is no real support there for such a move. The UK on the other hand, could foresee the unification of Ireland as a boon, since Northern Ireland has a substantial fiscal deficit running into billions of pounds/euros.

Scotland also may opt to have another vote for cessation from the Union, which if granted in the earlier days of withdrawal from the EU, could swing away and cause a huge uproar in constitutional and legal affairs in the UK. The Welsh who have the greatest fiscal deficit (per head of population) may well agitate for independence, but reality makes such an aspiration unlikely to succeed.

So there are great risks on both the EU and UK sides. Whist there have been many divisive shrieks from both sides of the Brexit arguments, no one can prophesy the future with any certainty.

In sketching the threats and opportunities that face us all, I hope some will be given food for thought.


Wales, closed for business?

Wales, closed for business?  The M4 relief road abandoned. 

The M4 – let’s wait another thirty years! Let the people of Newport choke.

Where will all the electric vehicles go? Not to the congestion that is inescapable along the M4.

Thirty years on, twenty since self government and at least £44mn pounds later, the decision is no.  You can’t accuse the Welsh government of rushing to conclusions.  Since 29% of the electorate bothered to turn out to vote on Welsh self-government 20years ago with just a 6,300 majority in favour, the Welsh have the apathetic government they deserve.

The whole of this sorry period has been overseen by an ineffective legislature which has by and large failed to make any decisions of worth.  Examples include Chief executives of failed Health Boards continuing to hold their jobs despite spectacular failure, (Their English counterparts fired/resigned) Any project from the Ebbw Vale redevelopment, Swansea Bay, and now the M4 have all turned to dust.  Yes of course, these projects have issues, but the M4 decision should have been a no-brainer.  The Welsh Government simply bottled it, kicked the can down the road.

This is a government that prefers to say no, this is a government that is afraid of risk.  This is a government unfit to be in power.  This is government of obdurate labour supporters determined to oppose anything good or bad that comes from central government at Westminster.

The first ministers with perhaps one exception have been non leaders, bureaucrats, smug in their political coats of red.  Indecisive and glib of tongue, these second rate aspirants have revelled in parochial power, whilst accepting none of the real challenges of supporting an enterprising Wales.

They speak in addled terms of their attitude toward the EU whilst at the same time proclaiming their delight at receiving support for deprived areas.  It would be a delight if, instead, they did something to alleviate these deprived areas with enterprise, renewal and energy.

The Welsh are a proud nation, how long will they tolerate this sort of botched government.  Maybe this dreadful decision will wake the electorate up to vote in numbers for a more dynamic Wales. The party that waits in the wings is Plaid Cymru, and whilst they are hardly re-known for being outward looking, they surely will be more enterprising than Welsh Labour. 

Unionists are not confined to Northern Ireland, many would do well to remember that the United Kingdom is our home and Wales an essential part of it.

 Many are opposed to the breakup of the Union, and the direction of travel of the SDP, but at least they have a personable and articulate leader who pushes for Scotland at all times.

This a wake up call for the Welsh nation and its political future, wake up! not only in the National Stadium but also at the ballot box.