Global Vision, as it is called,
"argues that in a globalising economy, Britain's future prosperity as a global trading nation needs a new form of positive engagement with Europe that
* maintains free trade and cooperation
* but allows Britain to opt out of economic and political integration and the attendant costs and regulatory burdens".
Which might well be an attempt to provide some intellectual backing for Dave's MER position on the reform of Europe.
What yet another think tank talking the same stuff as others on this issue will do that is different is hard to fathom. Open Europe has the exact same position. The Bruges Group is a little more independence minded. The European Foundation is much the same. The Freedom Association has a similar viewpoint, Global Britain another one, and so on ad infinitum. Sadly I fear that this will become another way to split money and effort, and due to the way in which the EU works it is barking up the wronmg tree. If the dammned place was reformable as these people seem to think, don't you think that it would have reformed by now? After all every British Government since accession more than 30 years ago has talked about reform, and all that has happened in that tiome is greater and greater EU control over our lives.
Oh yes. They need to learn a little about media management too. Put it this way. If you put this on the top of your press release,
"EMBARGOED UNTIL 0001 HOURS, THURSDAY 15 MARCH 2007"
Then you really shouldn't put it out on the web.
6 comments:
Unfortunately, you do not appear to know what you are talking about.
Open Europe does not advocate the same as Global Vision.
Global Vision does not advocate the same as Dave's Movement for European Reform.
By lumping all of it together, you showing that you have either not understood the arguments of Global Vision or not bothered to investigate it, in which case you should not be making comments on it.
Anon,
Whilst I would agree that there are areas of difference between Gloabl Vision and Open Europe, and for saying 'exactly' I apologise, my broader point stands.
This is a very congested area, and the dividing lines between the diffent bodies are very close indeed.
What Global Vision is advocating is essentialy a withdrawlist position. Which I of course applaud. But it seems to be doing so with a touching niaivety about how the EU would react. The negotiating position set out on th ewebsite is ingenious, and quite similar to John Redwood's position, but it takes no account how our partners would respond.
Remeber, 'No plan survives contact with the enemy'.
The bottom line is that the global vision of Global Vision is wihdrawal, but it seems without the guts to say so.
Thank you for your reply...do you not think that the withdrawal clause in the proposed EU constitution may have been included with the UK in mind? We are a burden to those who want the superstate, and perhaps that clause was a reference to setting us free and allowing them to pursue a model similar to the two speed Europe one?
Nice idea if it was!
I will check who was responsible for inserting that little bit into the Treaty, I have voluminous notes on the convention.
I have to say my feeling at the time was that it was a bone to throw at the UK (and others) but the caveats that surround this 'new right' were such that it was meaningless.
Back to the Global Vision campaign - surely they are providing much needed rational debate on why getting a better relationship with, but free of, Europe is needed?
It seems to me that UKIP etc are all branded extremist little-Englanders, and a sensible fact-based campaign is a good thing?
I cannot agree more. I wish them every sucess in that, rational discourse on the European Question. Looking forward to it...
Post a Comment