The level of dishonesty is breathtaking even for this mendacious chap.
Let me start by quoting someone who, I'm told, refused to study at Oxford University. That someone is John Stuart Mill.
Today, Mill is of course famous – along with his father - for developing Jeremy Bentham's ideas on utilitarianism, as well as writing key liberal texts on the nature of freedom, economics, and the role of the state.
He is less well known for his observations on Europe. In Chapter 3 of On Liberty, he compares European dynamism favourably with what he described as the 'stationary' nature of Chinese society. He concludes:
"What has made the European family of nations an improving, instead of a stationary portion of mankind?
Not any superior excellence in them, which when it exists, exists as the effect, not as the cause; but their remarkable diversity of character and culture.
Individuals, classes, nations, have been extremely unlike one another…Europe is, in my judgment, wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many-sided development."
I can't vouch for his views on China, particularly today. But on Europe he is spot on.
Europe's unique strength is its capacity to combine unity with diversity.
Bullshit alert. Just take a look at the Mill comment. Yup there you have it, lots and lots about the vital importance of diversity. And then look at the interpretation our florid dwarfish master puts on it. "unity with diversity"' Eh, what the f...? I would have been failed by my Ethics tutor for that flagrant dishonesty. Where the hell does he come up with unity from the quoted passage? Nowhere, it doesn't exist, it cannot carry the weight of our wannabe emperors vanity. What Mill does say and I repeat is "Europe is, in my judgment, wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many-sided development". Yes. Quite.
I am sorry I cannot go further into this, I copy the whole speech here, make of it what you will. My blood pressure does not allow me to comment further.
EUROPE AND THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBALISATION
St Antony's College Lecture
Oxford, 11 October 2007
Chairman,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I'd like to start by thanking Timothy Garton Ash and Kalypso Nikolaïdis for inviting me to speak here today, at one of the great centres in the world for the study of international relations and European studies. And a pleasure for me to be back in Oxford, fully twenty six years since my last visit.
I'm told that Oxford is always rather suspicious of lavish tributes paid by visitors to its beauty, to the excellence of its university, and so on.
So let me start by quoting someone who, I'm told, refused to study at Oxford University. That someone is John Stuart Mill.
Today, Mill is of course famous – along with his father - for developing Jeremy Bentham's ideas on utilitarianism, as well as writing key liberal texts on the nature of freedom, economics, and the role of the state.
He is less well known for his observations on Europe. In Chapter 3 of On Liberty, he compares European dynamism favourably with what he described as the 'stationary' nature of Chinese society. He concludes:
"What has made the European family of nations an improving, instead of a stationary portion of mankind?
Not any superior excellence in them, which when it exists, exists as the effect, not as the cause; but their remarkable diversity of character and culture.
Individuals, classes, nations, have been extremely unlike one another…Europe is, in my judgment, wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many-sided development."
I can't vouch for his views on China, particularly today. But on Europe he is spot on.
Europe's unique strength is its capacity to combine unity with diversity.
I think it is important to stress that. Why? Because there is still a perception, particularly in the UK, that Jean Monnet's gradualist approach to European integration – effectively 'neofunctionalism', for anyone taking notes! – is inexorably leading towards a centralised superstate.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let's look more closely at what Jean Monnet actually said. Reflecting on his ideas to pool coal and steel resources – the raw materials of war – that launched the integration process, he said: 'Europe will not be conjured up in a stroke, nor by an overall design. It will be attained by concrete achievements generating an active community of interest.'
In other words, by working together to deliver results that matter to our citizens, we build up the confidence and capacity to work together in more areas where there is clearly a common interest in achieving results. We create what is called in French a solidarité de fait. What emerges is a community of shared values.
This paints a very different picture to the caricature of the European Union as a distant elite trampling on diversity with endless diktats on harmonisation.
Member States do not transfer sovereignty, they share it. In the EU, sovereignty is not lost, it is pooled for greater effect. So for the UK, membership and influence in the EU, far from being a drain on her autonomy, is in fact a potent source of political and economic power. Monnet, indeed, was a good friend of Britain, having spent some time here during the war, and believed that the UK should be at the centre of this European "community of interest". [Ref to what JK Galbraith said about Monnet in war].
In short, then, European integration is about effective partnership. It's about respecting diversity by only doing at European level what cannot be done better at a national or regional level.
And it is proving its robustness in surprising ways.
By creating a genuine community of common interests, Jean Monnet's step-by-step approach is not just helping EU policies to evolve; it is helping the whole purpose of the EU to evolve as well. First, the internal challenges of securing peace, and establishing the single market and common currency, as well as pushing ahead with enlargement which has taken us all the way from six to 27 Member States.
Now, a whole new set of external challenges has emerged, linked to globalisation. Tackling climate change. Adapting to increasing global competition. Dealing with mass migration. Facing up to the scourge of poverty in Africa. Defending against international terrorism.
All these challenges have two things in common. First, they affect us all. Second, no nation state – even the most powerful - can hope to tackle them successfully on its own.
From being the guarantor of peace on a continent ravaged by war, the European Union has evolved into something quite unique: an effective instrument for developing solutions to the new, cross-border challenges thrown up by globalisation.
For anyone who follows these things – and I'm guessing that applies to virtually everyone in this room – this evolution has been detectable for many years now.
But it really crystallised, I think, when we relaunched the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs in the Spring of 2005. Lisbon is now focused squarely on giving Europe a dynamic economy which generates sustainable growth and high quality jobs, and which can stand up to the rigours of increased global competition.
This was followed up later that year with an informal meeting a few miles down the motorway at Hampton Court, under the UK Presidency. There, Europe's leaders called on the European Commission to take action on other key challenges of globalisation, like innovation, energy, migration and demography.
We have built on these solid foundations. Only this year, for example, Europe's initiatives have put it at the forefront of global efforts to fight climate change, helping to usher in a low-carbon economy while establishing a European policy for secure, sustainable and competitive energy.
This evolving, global Europe must be an open Europe. It must be an outward-looking Europe. And it can and must resist those whose response to globalisation is to retreat behind protectionist barricades.
And this is why the United Kingdom has such an important role to play.
This vision of an open society, engaged with the world, is one that has a long history here in the UK. And in all the areas of common interest where the EU is now active, Britain has traditionally been a leading advocate for joint action. As I said to Prime Minister Gordon Brown this morning, Europe needs the UK as much as the UK needs Europe, and we had a very useful exchange across a range of policies where we have very strong common interests.
Take climate change. The EU was the prime mover in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. It was EU leadership which secured the final agreement on multilateral action to tackle climate change, thanks in part to intensive diplomacy which built up a coalition of the willing.
Today, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is a vital, transnational, market-based instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective way. We intend to reduce EU greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in 2020 compared to 1990. We are also prepared to be even more radical, cutting emissions by 30% by 2020, if other developed countries join us.
And it's not just about the challenge of cutting emissions, but transforming our whole economy to a low carbon model. This idea underpins last month's energy package and will be central to our proposals for the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali this December.
And what about Africa and the fight against poverty? That's a cause close to my own heart, as well as British hearts, and here too the European Union has led by example.
The EU is the most open market in the world for the poorest countries, and their largest trading partner. The EU also absorbs fully 85 per cent of all Africa's agriculture exports. In fact, it imports more goods from Africa than the US. And Canada. And Australia. And Japan. And New Zealand. Combined.
Collectively, the EU accounts for 55 per cent of all official development aid spent worldwide – a figure projected to rise to 63 per cent by 2010.
Necessary, certainly. But clearly not sufficient. Personally, I find it a moral outrage that with our resources, our medicines and our technology, 25,000 people are still dying every day because they do not have enough to eat or clean water to drink. I have to say that historians will wonder: how was it that we did so little when we had the capacity to do so much ?
Ladies and gentlemen,
We have a shared vision. We have a shared interest in taking joint action. We have a shared view on so much of the policy. So I find it frankly strange that the debate on this side of the Channel so often seems to suggest that the UK is fundamentally at odds with the Continent.
I don't believe this reflects the reality here in the UK.
With your long-held international outlook, I don't believe that your arms can be open to the world while your hearts and minds are closed to Europe.
Or, I should say, to the rest of Europe. Your Foreign Secretary quite rightly pointed out recently that the UK does not have a bilateral relationship with the EU, it is part of the EU.
We are all in the same boat. OK, I know it's a cliché to talk about rowing here in Oxford. But if I can't talk about rowing at St Antony's, with its talent for winning 'blades', where can I? We can achieve so much more by rowing forward together, rather than trying to row in different directions, or indeed, against the tide.
A fully committed UK is vitally important to the EU. And all the more important because the issues themselves, certainly our own response to them, are relatively new. We know that the EU has to become an effective instrument for acting in Europe's interest in a globalising world.
Here's what I think. In order to equip Europe for a globalised world we must invest in people, in growth and jobs, in energy security, in fighting climate change, in giving consumers a fairer deal, in stepping up cooperation to fight crime and terrorism.
But I am also convinced that protectionism is not the answer. Protectionism won't protect our citizens, it will impoverish them. Instead we should be urging others to follow our openness. We should insist on a level playing field. The challenge we are facing is how to protect our citizens, our firms and our values in a globalising world without being protectionist.
For all these reasons, the Commission last week presented its vision of an EU which shapes globalisation instead of simply reacting to it; of an EU capable of making its citizens active players rather than passive victims. This paper will contribute to discussions by European leaders at next week's informal summit in Lisbon.
The Reform Treaty is also a vital part of this jigsaw puzzle. We have to modernise our institutions as well, to prepare them for globalisation.
Some of my friends, including here in Britain, say that they can live with the idea of Europe, but think Europe is obsessed with institutions. The key to Europe, they say, is the market.
Well, there can be no markets without institutions. Markets need rules. It's as simple as that. And to run a market, across 27 countries, you of course need effective institutions. Those who want to reduce the EU to a market don't even understand markets. You can't run a market stall without rules.
Let's be frank – it would be impossible to run a single market in Europe without a strong Commission, without a strong Court of Justice. And you can forget free and fair competition as well.
That is why, let's be clear, we need a legal framework which allows Europe to function properly. And that's what the institutional debate was all about. We needed to ensure that a system created for six Member States is capable of functioning more effectively for a Europe of 27 Member States and more.
But I also believe that it is now time to end this debate. The Treaty does its job. We need to put it behind us and move on.
We now have to focus on finding the right policies to tackle the challenges of globalisation. And here, to transform the old slogan, we need to think globally, and act globally.
Ultimately, globalisation is affecting political governance at all levels, even the European one. Yes, the EU is the best tool its members have for developing solutions to common problems. Yes, it has the critical mass necessary to play a leadership role in the world. But even the EU faces limitations in what it can achieve by itself.
This should not surprise anyone. After all, while Europe is taking the lead in combating climate change, for example, it cannot possibly succeed on its own. How can it, when it is only responsible for 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions – a proportion set to fall in coming years?
So, increasingly, the role of the EU will be to articulate between the European community of interest and what we might call the global community of interest.
To remain master of our own destiny, we have to shape globalisation in accordance with our values. We in Europe have the capacity to do this, to propose solutions to the rest of the world based on our experiences of working together [e.g. standards, competition]. We have to engage with the world and help give real meaning, at a global level, to the rule of law, democracy, human rights and multilateralism.
This certainly does not require a wholesale transfer of power to Brussels. What it requires is that all Member States, including the UK, must play a full role, must bring all their unique talents and experiences to the table, so that Europe can maximise its influence and weight in the world.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I have tried to show what, in a changing world, the EU can do for its Member States. To show how Europe must change too, and why the UK has a vital role to play in this evolving situation.
But let me give the final word to John Stuart Mill, who already 150 years ago summarised, in a classically grumpy way, the value of Europe's unique blend of differences and similarities:
"…although at every period those [Europeans] who travelled in different paths have been intolerant of one another,
and [although] each would have thought it an excellent thing if all the rest could have been compelled to travel his road,
their attempts to thwart each other's development have rarely had any permanent success,
and each has, in time, endured to receive the good which the others have offered."
For me, what was true then is just as true today. Europe as an inspiration for others, united in its diversity!
Thank you very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment