Greens meet Grüne

An exchange meeting between the Green Party of England and Wales, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament.

Friday 15 April - Saturday 16 April, Bristol

Notes "The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum"

Speaker:

  • Dr Wolfgang Rüdig, university of Strathclyde, School of Government and Public Policy
  • Jean Lambert, MEP
  • Manuel Sarrazin, MP German Bundestag
  • Chair: Terry Reintke, MEP

Discourse and EU narrative

  • UK reluctant member of the EU. Britain felt that it was separate. Also those who argue for the EU say that they don't like the EU but that it is better to remain a member.
  • Current situation in Britain: very little foreign news, consumer attitude to news, politics are regarded as boring, fewer British people learn foreign languages→ universities closing down foreign language departments
  • Domestically: trend to look more inside or to the US instead to Europe. Even Labour doesn't look to France or Germany but to the US.
  • Young people are the strongest supporters, but less likely to vote
  • In Germany, peace narrative very strongly linked to the EU, EU as part of the identity. Not the case in Britain: WWII - predominant discourse: Britain stood alone and secured peace in Europe, "all our problems came from the continent" is the feeling.
  • Commonly used argument is that everything in Brussels is decided by a small number of unelected persons - people don't know that the British government is involved in all decisions.
  • UK has no constitution, everything is very organic.
  • British businesses see free movement as absolutely vital

UKIP and other political parties in UK

  • UKIP started to talk about free movement in the way that a huge number of people is coming and entitled to our social benefits → project fear. People believed that they have access to everything (especially housing!) from day one. Discourse changed to control: the British people should be in control of their own borders etc.UKIP also changed the way in which they talk about immigration: We are letting down our cousins from the Common Wealth for the refugees' sake - and we don't even know who is coming → more control needed.
  • Cameron has put himself in this difficult situation. 2011 and 2015 manifestos fed the UKIP mood: reduce net immigration to the UK. But one could not control this, it is dependent upon the international situation. Emergency brake system: Council agrees because this is what they have Cameron reduced to.
  • Debate has shifted because other parties did not counter the UKIP narrative.EU is scapegoat for internal politics.

Consequences of negative outcome

  • Legal uncertainty after successful Brexit referendum may lead to no investments or even de-investment in UK. No regulation in place for the posting of workers.
  • Skilled workers might prefer to go to Germany or elsewhere instead of Britain because of thefreeze on in-work benefits for EU citizens.
  • Time is getting rougher: A stronger Europe is able to protects the UK better than a strong nation state.
  • Britain has a lot of influence in the EU: Best bargain is that the UK might get out. If it gets out, it will lose this bargaining power. Britain is really strong, even stronger as Germany. Cameron did not get much, but everybody involved played this theatre.
  • EU is not delivering in big questions. Germany and France are not able to deliver solutions. It would cause problems if UK were not on the table anymore to deliver solutions.
  • Westminster would have to regulate everything new - huge turmoil in the political system could be the consequence.