Created: Tuesday, 16 February 2016 18:28
The argument surrounding British involvement in the EU is fast becoming a main political topic in British politics, only behind the Coalition government's austerity plan and the debate surrounding Scottish Independence on the political agenda. However, the extent to which the EU plays in the government's austerity plans and what involvement it may have in an independent Scotland, also links into the debate on the EU and it's growing political and economic power. Short of the extreme step of withdrawal from the European Union, Britain can do little to counter the neo-liberal agenda of the EU.
This, however, is not an option for Britain in it's current form as it is dependent on the capital and trade from the EU, meaning that there is little option but to accept EU control and rate settings, which it must organise it's political and economic policies around accordingly. This article will look at how decisions are constrained by the EU and it's institutions and how the democratic rights of citizens in Britain and throughout the EU have been abused to force through a single military and economic policy, as well as analysing what this means for the construction of a 'United States of Europe'. When Britain joined the European Economic Community, the ability for it to influence the world through it's foreign policy and economic superiority had long since become extinct. The rise of the United States of America as world power and diminishing of empire had seen Britain become marginalised more and more since the end of the Second World War. The onset of economic crisis in 1973 saw deep entrenched cracks in the British economy expand. For British state-capital, the glory days of the empire was over, joining the EEC was the only option for the British state. However, by joining the EEC, British state government and parliament gave up it's sovereign right over it's economy to the council of ministers and the European commission. For the Labour government in charge at the time, this meant that it could not implement it's policies of state intervention, ownership and investment in industry because, as Tony Benn recalls: “Every key decision in the fields of industrial and regional policy would be subject to supervision, control and a possible veto by the commission,” (Tony Benn, 1980).
Read more ...