I think the whole thrust of the Dutch and French NO votes this week was not about the constitution (few people are likely to have read it in full) but a vote against the European parliamentary machine, and the EU's "one size fits all" approach to the member states. That, plus the fact that people don't want to be governed by an unelected assembly of politicians who treat the views of the Euro electorate with contempt. By that I mean guys like Jacques Chirac who, as soon as the result became known, are quick to point out that the show will go on - the referenda "won't make any difference - we're going to press on regardless". I think people have had enough of the Tony Blair style of doing things. The former leader of the Conservative party, Iain Duncan Smith, nailed it during an interview with John Simpson on Channel 4 news. As he put it, the Chiracs of this world simply interpret the result of the referenda as the "wrong" result, and look for ways to bludgeon the electorate into voting for the "right" result.
I have come to think of the EU parliament as a graveyard for failed politicians. I think it's the ultimate irony that the former Labour leader Neil Kinnock, who lost two consecutive general elections, should hold such high office there. In the 1970s/early 80s, Neil Kinnock was one of the most outspoken critics of the EU and was vehemently opposed to Britain's continued membership. Of course, all that changed when he could see the opportunities that it presented. For him, that was a job at the EU in 1992 on a tax free salary of around £140,000 with accommodation expenses met by the EU, and a generous cash allowance for "other expenses". I don't know much about Kinnock's role these days. I heard he was in charge of rooting out corruption, but was found to be sweeping it under the carpet. If true, the cap certainly fits.
Typical of the EU's "one size fits all" approach was last year when the ten new members joined, and it was announced that each would receive a grant of £3m for their fishing industries. But wait - three of those new member states (Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia) are land locked countries and do not have coastlines. Typical of the EU's "railroad it through regardless" approach was for them then to say "Oh, well they have rivers that can be fished..."
The EU was formed initially in 1957 under the Treaty of Rome. It was a trading bloc. In English, it was known as the "Common Market". As such, I was very much in favour of it. I couldn't see any advantage to trade barriers, quotas, and tariffs on each other's products, so it was good when that ended, and good also that we can live and work in any of the other member states without having to apply for citizenship etc., and good that in most cases we can move freely between countries, eg. drive across borders without having to stop for passport stamping.
So in 1975, when Britain held a referendum to decide upon Britain's continued membership, I voted YES. Most people felt the same way, and the vote was carried 2-1.
But the "Common Market" has undergone a metamorphosis. First it became the EEC (European Economic Community) and then simply the EC (European Community) perhaps when it was decided it was no longer economic! Now it's the EU, but it's not about trade any more. It's about being governed from Brussels, and being subjected to a parliamentary machine whose laws take primacy over the laws of the individual member states.
To anyone whose been watching from the sidelines this past few years, it seems pretty clear that the MEPs don't give a toss about the will of the people they supposedly represent - hence all this talk about pressing on regardless of what the population says in those countries which have at least been allowed to voice their opinion. And it's that that the people of France and the Netherlands voted against this week. If Britain were to hold a referendum, the result would be the same - and for the same reasons.
