The conceit at the heart of British membership in the EU

The key to political success is to beat your opponent to framing any issue in terms favourable to yourself. Once an issue is seen through the lens you selected, the fight is almost won.

The European referendum may just offer some evidence for this claim. Both camps have been busy trying to frame the issue of European Union membership, at times frantically. The leave side is hamstrung by the fact that predictions of things to come are always difficult to articulate, so their argument is necessarily focused on problems and difficulties of the present. They have made some hay of the fact that Britain has transferred sovereignty to Brussels. What they do not mention is that Brussels is an intergovernmental organisation at best, granting the British government a voice at the table. In fact, it is difficult to pinpoint a single issue that has not been passed by Brussels which did not receive the express consent of some British minister.

The Brexiters are on safer ground when it comes to the argument that Britain joined an organisation that was fundamentally different to the Europe today. As a BBC documentary recently offered a fascinating look behind the moment Britain joined. And it seems that Britain did not sleepwalk into a Europe with a single currency and parliament. The truth is more complicated yet also more embarrassing for the Conservatives who wholeheartedly supported joining the European Communities in 1974 (including one Margaret Thatcher).

In 1974 the roles were curiously reversed to those adopted today, with most of Labour opposed to joining Europe and the Conservatives largely in favour. At the heart of Ted Heath's strategy to convince his parliamentary colleagues was a conceit however. The Government argued that this was a community of independent nation states promoting free trade in Europe. On the Monday following the 'yes' vote in 1974, then Prime Minister Ted Heath was given the agenda for his first meeting with other European leaders. The civil servant, glancing at the agenda, noticed that one point to be discussed was 'establishing a common currency by 1980'. He mentioned this to Heath and, apparently Heath looked up and said: 'That's what it is all about'.

The BBC documentary interviewed Heath before his death in 2005 and pointed out to him the discrepancy between what he argued in public and what he had known all along, the true destination of Europe. In the documentary Heath looks puzzled and says something to the effect, 'so what?'

I always felt that the way the British joined the European Communities was the Achilles heel of those wanting to make a positive case for European Union membership. At the heart of the British membership remains a conceit by one of the most dishonest politicians, Ted Heath. You may argue about the pros and cons of pooling national sovereignty in European institutions, but you cannot argue that Germans and French politicians were not clear with their electorate about the final destination. The same cannot be said for the British. I would not be surprised if this will come to haunt them on June 23rd.

On community spirits and Thatcher's legacy

With the funeral of Baroness Thatcher getting closer, the country seems to hark back to the times of division and hatred. I wont wade into the debate whether Thatcher did more good than bad (or vice versa) but instead would like to impart a brief observation. Reading the obituaries (reverent and irreverent ones) I noticed that some attributed the loss of community spirit to her policies. 

This reminded me of the nostalgia for socialism and its ‘collective spirits’ shared by many in the former communist countries where democracy and freedom have allegedly brought about the demise of the feelings of friendship and mutual support. However, I cant help but wonder about the conspicuous lack of strength in those communities if they only existed in the good times. If Thatcher wrought so much misery on these communities, wouldn’t her time in government increase the strength of those community spirits, rather than bring about their decline? 

Happy times?

It seems that, after all, those communities were not so much cultivating the spirits of mutual support, but fostering a sense of exclusivity, where individuals had to submit to the rule of the collective. In this sense, perhaps the decline of the community spirits heralded the inevitable rise of individuality and personal freedom. Clearly, as some ‘communities’ imploded under Thatcher, people had to re-forge the foundations of society anew, a laborious and challenging process. Yet the product was not atomism, as some commentators have written. It was individual liberty realised, as Hegel would have said.

Baroness Margaret Thatcher - RIP

The death of Baroness Margaret Thatcher has just been announced. She will undoubtedly leave an enormous gap in British public life. Her contribution to British politics has been huge. She also worked tirelessly to bring down the Iron Wall in Europe. Her efforts to defeat socialism in Eastern Europe will never be forgotten.

Coming from a humble family she fought British establishment, even and especially in her own party, radiating a confident belief in herself and her powers. She changed the face of Britain for the better and will be missed.

The challenge of modern railways

Talking about the railways in the UK can get you into trouble. People are cross with the quality of the trains, overcrowding and, at times, livid with rage when the talk turns to fares. The public perception is that the privatization of the railways in 1993 was a shambles and resulted in a fragmented railway system, worse levels of service, and ever higher prices. It signified everything that was wrong with the privatization of public services under the Thatcher and Major governments. 

Often, this view goes hand in hand with nostalgic reminiscing about the glorious past of British Rail. Or. sometimes, people point to railways on the continent which seem to offer better service, for a fraction of the price of what people here pay in fares and subsidies. 

There is some truth in this picture. The railways in the UK are one of the most expensive in Europe for commuters who have to travel at peak times. The controversial fare policies of train companies mean that those who have no choice but to take the train to commute early in the day to work are most penalised. The fragmentation of the railways also prevent coherent local and regional transport policies. In the UK, it is virtually impossible to optimise transport systems across sectors, to integrate them effectively in regional hubs and design a consistent transport approach which would focus on reduction of bottlenecks in private and public transport networks. 

Yet, the ultimate failure of railway privatization may have to do with the promise politicians made when they embarked on this mad cap plan: that public subsidy to the railways would come down to, eventually, a level where private train companies would not require any public support. 

So where does this leave us today? Ed Miliband has said repeatedly that the train companies are ‘ripping ordinary people off’ by increasing fares above inflation. And Will Self has recently announced on Question Time (once again) that we should re-nationalise the railways. 

There is no doubt that the way in which the railways were privatized produced a fragmented rail system. There were good reason why the Major Government used the Railway Act to separate track and franchises for networks, the Swedish example of privatization along similar lines being one of them. However, the result in the UK was disastrous. This is less a judgement on privatization than on the type of privatization used. The German railways are fully privatized yet the holding company retains control over rolling stock, networks and tracks. 

But the nostalgia for a nationalized railway disregards the main fact of recent railway history: an unprecedented rise in the number of passenger journeys. In 1993 there were about 0.73 billion journey made in the UK. By last year, this figure had doubled to 1.4 billion journeys. 

This is a phenomenal rise which would prove difficult for any transport system. The newly privatized railways had to deal with a doubling of capacity within the last 18 years. Comparing the railways of the 1980s and early 1990s with the railways of 2011 simply tells us very little unless we acknowledge that today, railways are a profoundly different kind of fish to those of the past. Would the old British Rail have coped with these challenges? 

We wont know, but the fact is that privatization brought £2.3 billion in terms of investment to the table between 2006 and last year (Source at DfT website). This may be dwarfed by the figures of annual subsidy (in 2010 at the tune of £4.6 billion) but it is still something that we, the tax payer, would have had to come up with if the old British Rail was still around.