Feeds:
Inlägg
Kommentarer

Posts Tagged ‘Daniel Hannan’

VAL 2016 | Tre tidskrifter har inför folkomröstningen i Storbritannien bjudit in representanter för Vote Remain och Vote Leave att argumentera för sin sak.

Newsweek 24 juni 2016

I Newsweek är det Iain Duncan Smith och Sadiq Khan som står för argumenten.

Duncan Smith, som säger Ja till Brexit, var partiledare för Conservative Party mellan 2001 och 2003 och minister för ”work and pensions” i David Camerons regering mellan åren 2010-2016.

Sadiq Khan, från Labour, valdes till Londons borgmästare i maj och anser att Storbritannien mår bäst av att stanna kvar i EU.

Först Duncan Smiths argument i korthet:

President Barack Obama is just one of the many international leaders to urge the people of the United Kingdom to remain members of the European Union. But in doing so he is asking British voters to accept policies and institutions that the American people would not accept for themselves. I’m not just guessing that this is the case. An opinion poll by YouGov found that only 29 percent of Americans would agree to Mexicans having an automatic right to live and work in the U.S. in return for Americans enjoying such a right in Mexico. Even fewer—19 percent—supported the idea of a joint Canadian-Mexican-American high court that would be the ultimate decider of human rights questions. Only 33 percent supported a “South and North American Environmental Agency” that would regulate the fishing industry across the Americas.

As members of the 28-state EU, the British people are subject to the decisions of a supranational and highly politicized court; they watch as jobs in their neighborhoods are taken by Romanians, Bulgarians and other Europeans; and they also find that bureaucrats in Brussels rather than elected representatives in the House of Commons decide all key environmental, fishing and agricultural matters. Britain is only a fraction of the democracy that it was in 1973, when we joined the European Economic Community.

Och här är några av Khans motargument:

Whether it’s analysis from the British Treasury, the Bank of England, the Confederation of British Industry, the International Monetary Fund or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, it is clear that remaining part of the EU will be better for our economy, better for trade, better for businesses—both large and small—and better for exports.

Almost half of everything we sell to the rest of the world we sell to Europe. In London alone, we export more than £12 billion every year to Europe, and we are home to the European headquarters of 60 percent of the world’s non-European global businesses.

Access to EU markets is crucial to the success of the City of London, and for every £1 we put into the EU, we get almost £10 back through increased trade, investment, low prices and jobs.

I The Spectator har Matthew Parris och Daniel Hannan plockat fram sina sex bästa argument för och emot EU-medlemskapet. Debattörerna har dessutom fått möjlighet att replikera på varandras inlägg.

The Spectator 11 June 2016

Parris är kolumnist för tidskriften och dagstidningen The Times. Hannan sitter i EU-parlamentet för Conservative PartyParris skriver:

Like almost everyone, I’ve piled angrily into this fight. But as the debate nears resolution I feel ashamed of all my furious certainties. In the end, none of us knows, and we shouldn’t pretend to. So I’ll try now to express more temperately six thoughts that persist as the early rage subsides.

From the first three you’ll see that I’m beginning to understand that for many the EU is now a whipping boy. ‘Europe’ has become for many what in other ages Rome, or communist plots, or America, or international Jewry, or big business represented: a conspiracy against us, an explanation. In the words of Cavafy’s poem ‘Waiting for the Barbarians’, ‘a kind of solution’. Europe has become a punchbag for our fears and frustrations. Hating the EU has become exciting, brave, a source of self-affirmation, a proxy.

Daniel Hannan inleder med att skriva:

For me, as for so many people, it’s a heart versus head issue. I’m emotionally drawn to Europe. I speak French and Spanish and have lived and worked all over the Continent. I’ve made many friends among the Brussels functionaries. Lots of them, naturally, are committed Euro-federalists. Yet they are also decent neighbours, loyal companions and generous hosts. I feel twinges of unease about disappointing them, especially the anglophiles. But, in the end, the head must rule the heart.

Remainers often tell us to think of our children, and I’m doing precisely that. I am thinking, not just about the EU as it is now, but about the diminished role that a surly, introverted Europe will have in their lifetime. And that makes my decision very easy.

Standpoint har låtit de två konservativa parlamentsledamöterna Oliver Letwin och Michael Gove stå för argumenten.

Standpoint..

Letwin, förespråkare för Vote Remain, tar i sitt inlägg som utgångspunkt det avtal som premiärminister David Cameron förhandlade fram med EU inför folkomröstningen.

The binding, international law decision that he agreed with the other heads of government in Brussels a few months ago provides explicitly for some member states to form voluntarily a full political, fiscal and monetary union. But it also makes it explicitly clear that this will not apply to other states (including, explicitly, the UK).

The agreement goes on to state explicitly that the phrase “ever closer union” does not provide the European Court with a legal basis for expansive interpretations of the treaties, that it is not the ambition of the UK to form part of an ever closer union, and that the phrase “ever closer union” therefore does not apply to the UK.

Second, the agreement acknowledges, for the first time, that the EU is and will remain permanently a multi-currency zone. And, to make a reality of this, it establishes a new set of protocols governing the relationship between those countries within the eurozone and those countries that maintain their own currencies.

These changes are fundamental. Together, they create the opportunity for a new Europe of concentric circles to emerge — a Europe in which Britain can do exactly what very many of us have wanted for decades: namely, for Britain to be a permanent, full member of the outer circle, the free trade single market, while some other countries travel towards a different destination as members of the inner circle of political, fiscal and monetary union.

Även Michael Gove, Vote Leave, argumenterar utifrån avtalet med Bryssel. Gove är minister i Camerons regering.

We have to be honest about the lack of reform. The deal with other EU nations doesn’t return a single power from Brussels to nation states, doesn’t reduce wasteful EU spending by a penny, doesn’t get rid of a single job-destroying regulation or display even a glimmer of a scintilla of a recognition that the EU might be anything other than a Garden of Eden from which no one should wish to be excluded.

But what makes the deal particularly problematic for us in Britain is not just failure to reform the EU this time round, but the surrender of our veto over future changes.

The deal specifies that countries such as Britain which may not want to see further integration will give up their ability to stop others; they “will not create obstacles to but [will] facilitate such further deepening”.

It has always been critical to the defence of our interests in Europe that we can block other countries at critical moments and make sure our needs are met before others can make new arrangements. The PM made good use of that power in 2011 when he vetoed plans for further integration that didn’t take account of Britain’s needs. Under the new Brussels deal, that power would be lost.

Tidskriftsomslag: Newsweek den 24 juni 2016; The Spectator den 11 juni 2016; Standpoint juni 2016.

Read Full Post »

10 Downing StreetKOMMUNIKATION: I Storbritannien är det nu fullt politiskt krig bland politiska bloggar och på Twitter.

Den konservativa politikern Daniel Hannan höll ett tal i Europaparlamentet som kom att få 1,1 miljoner tittare på YouTube. I talet gick Hannan till attack på premiärminister Gordon Brown;

”When you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re ‘well-placed to weather the storm’, I have to tell you that you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line.”

Det var intressant att talet inte fick någon uppmärksamhet överhuvudtaget i England. Men på YouTube genererade inslaget över 7000 kommentarer. Detta fick BBC att ta upp frågan och bjuda in två av landets tyngsta politiska bloggare – Derek Draper på LabourList och Paul Stains på Guido Fawkes´blog – för att förklara fenomenet.

Draper och Fawkes är sedan tidigare inte de bästa av vänner. Det var bl.a. på bloggen Guido Fawkes som Derek Draper avslöjades som delaktig i att smutskasta politiska motståndare.

Kriget mellan bloggarna har blivit så omfattande att BBC:s The Daily Politics t.o.m. har gjort ett reportage om striderna.

Nu har Daniel Hannan återigen hamnat i rampljuset efter att ha kritiserat det engelska NHS – det brittiska hälso- och sjukvårdssystemet – i amerikansk TV.

Detta har i sin tur fått partiledare David Cameron att kritisera Hannan eftersom de konservativa är rädda för att framstå som partiet som vill montera ner NHS.

Gordon Brown och hans fru Sarah Brown har gett sig in i debatten och gett sitt stöd till NHS på en kampanj – #welovetheNHS – på Twitter som vill försvara och framhäva allt som är positivt med NHS.

Kampanjen har fått ett massivt stöd vilket naturligtvis är en anledning till att Cameron vill hålla Hannan tillbaka och Brown går på offensiven.

Paret Brown har också gett sig in i hetluften eftersom motståndarna till president Barack Obamas försök att reformera det amerikanska hälso- och sjukvårdssystemet använder det brittiska NHS som argument.

Genom att tala positivt om NHS försvarar Gordon Brown inte bara sin egen hälso- och sjukvårdspolitik utan kan nu också spinna att de konservativa är opatriotiska när man framför sin kritik utomlands.

Fallet med Daniel Hannan och Twitter kampanjen är exempel på hur teknologin driver på och kan sätta den politiska agendan. Inget av de politiska partierna vill framstå som motståndare till NHS samtidigt som alla partier vet att systemet måste reformeras.

Eller som Laura Kuenssberg på BBC:s nyhetslogg uttrycker det;

Labour is clearly enjoying this recently-rare chance to stick the knife into the Conservatives – they believe that the massive online defence of the NHS shows that they’re on the right side. The health service is tribal for them.

And the Conservative leadership is so determined not to be seen as the enemy of the health service that some of their comments today read a bit like NHS fanmail!

One recent poll showed the Conservatives and Labour equally trusted to run the health service: David Cameron doesn’t want to throw that away. But with both sides engaged in such a black-and-white argument, I wonder whether either is really achieving very much.

Read Full Post »