Yesterday evening King’s College London held a very interesting debate regarding the future of Britain in Europe, and what Europe may look like in such a case, which I was fortunate enough to attend. The debate was very lively, and many interesting points, as well as many oft repeated ones came out of it. The panel included politicians – Labour party member Ivana Bartoletti, UKIP member Peter Whittle, and former conservative MP and chair of the European Movement UK, Laura Sandys. To supplement this was the journalist and FT columnist Wolfgang Münchau, Vice-Chairman of Morgen Stanley & ex-Italian Finance Minister Domenico Siniscalco, and finally the chair, senior Italian diplomat, Vincenzo Celeste.

As you might be able to tell, many of these panellists were pro-Europe. As Siniscalco put it, the Italians do not question something so fundamental and deeply ingrained as the idea of Italy being a part of the European Union. Interestingly enough however, this was counter-balanced by a very eurosceptic and UKIP-filled audience, which adequately held the panellists to account, and I’m sure gave the resident UKIP member, Mr Whittle, just cause for a little smile at the prospects of the referendum.

Siniscalco was a very interesting case, considering he’s the second ex-finance minister I’ve heard to report on the running of those Ecofin (Economy and Finance) Minister meetings, which is where all the interesting stuff in at least Eurozone politics happens. The meetings, which few are privy to witnessing. The other was the Greek, Yanis Varoufakis. Siniscalco was certainly not as scathing about those meetings in his summary of them, and had different reasons for explaining why they are the way they are. However the end result is the same. They are wrong in the way they are run, do not work for the good of the people, and need to be reformed. Varoufakis argued that one change that might make a difference would be to record the meetings for general public viewing, as to really show them the kind of situation Eurozone politics finds itself in. Siniscalco’s main issue was the sheer number of people at the table – especially at the discussions which involve representatives from all members of the European Union – which make any kind of constructive decision making impossible.

Now to get onto the meat of the discussions. Despite most being pro-EU, there were many varying opinions on what the EU meant, which I noticed, and others pointed pointed out, is very typical of the EU. Labour member Bartoletti even said that the EU, its pros and its cons, meant something different to every single person. She herself was the only panellist to point out the series of regulations passed by the EU focussing on the area of social security and social justice. Guaranteed maternity and paternity leave for parents, the working-time directive, protection from discrimination in the workplace, equal opportunities and health & safety standards are all areas which are enforced to some degree or other by the EU. Of course there were people in the audience who disagreed, particularly one man who was very incensed by the idea that the EU had protected workers, as opposed to allowing people access to jobs where they would undercut the going rate, leading to a worse off deal for British citizens.

Personally I think that that particular criticism is important; companies should not be able to undercut the minimum wage, and it has been supported to some degree by both a 2013 study by UCL and one by the IPPR – although the true impact is small and affects only the lowest paid. Of course these are clearly the people that are in most need of protection, however as for the broad statement that ‘migrants undercut wages’, this seems more of a general fear than an actual threat. Nevertheless, it is, in my opinion, something which should be non-existent. If a British worker is not going to be employed at the going rate, neither should an EU one, for political and social reasons. First, it reflects badly on the EU, and secondly, it is taking advantage of the social forces which – beyond the control of the individual – have led the foreign worker to expect a lower standard of living, and the British worker to expect and be used to a higher one. You cannot punish the Briton for this. The EU doesn’t, but any potential for this occurring needs to be outlawed by the EU.

I’ll get on to the man from UKIP now, considering we’re talking about problems. Much of the normal rhetoric came from Peter Whittle, in his attacks against bureaucracy, deficient democracy, restricted national sovereignty, chaos, and the like. The democratic deficit is a problem that we as supporters of the EU are going to have to admit as being valid so long as the EU functions the way it does without reform (which, coincidently, Münchau believed would be unlikely in the near future). When eurosceptics talk about this, and especially in linking it with bureaucracy, they are usually referring to the fact that the national parliaments do not have a strong veto over laws passed by the EU, or the more sophisticated understanding that whilst there is a democratically elected European Parliament, they do not have the power to suggest laws, this instead being left up to the European Commission, which the majority of is not elected. Habermas would further dispute that this even constituted a legitimate transnational democracy, without the equal accountability of the Commission to the Parliament and Council of the EU, and the abolishment of the European Council. However even with all these reforms (which as Münchau said are nigh impossible in the near future), I doubt our UKIP friends would be happy. The fact is, they do not like the fact that ‘Britain’ can be outvoted on issues, and completely dismiss the idea that Britain has a voice in EU institutions.

Interestingly this is where I bring in Wolfgang Münchau, who despite his sophisticated understanding of the EU (which I believe is necessary to commenting properly on the Union), shows his colours as a true German pragmatist. In his article in FT last month about fiscal union, I didn’t truly understand what he meant when he said “If a genuine banking union is politically unattainable, we should have left responsibility with national authorities”. However in reading this week’s article about Schengen in the wake of the Paris attacks, I understand that what he wants is for the EU to deliver in the things it is responsible for – if it can’t, then it shouldn’t be given the job. If it cannot be expected to step up work on making the Schengen external border a properly protected one, then this should be left with the nation-states. Likewise with the Banking Union, and every other promise it has made.

This finally brings me onto Laura Sandys, who threw in a mix of what many would call fear-mongering, as well as a focus on what the EU can do, specifically for Britain. This meant emphasis on the potentials of the service sector and digital markets unions, as well as TTIP, and all the ways Britain would be able to take advantage of these developments. On the other hand, we had the talk of a reduced world standing after a Brexit, the problems that could result in Northern Ireland, loss of economic power etc. It was an interesting line to take, and the fact is focused on many practical points surrounding the debate. However I got the feeling that it simply did not resonate among people. Because it was neither positive, nor negative. It was just very middle ground. The thing is Sandys made a good point about framing the pro-side of the debate on Europe; the fact is there are many ideas to consider and worse still, many things sceptics have problems with. Sandys said that the north see the EU as some capitalist hegemony, and the south see it as a socialist plot. Either there’s too much focus on business and industry, or there’s too much focus on regulation and bureaucracy. And that’s because like a state, the EU does have the aim of trying to consider everyone in society, however it pursues that aim. And also, it thus alienates people in the policies it pursues. Like any government, it seems it cannot win.

This brings me to my conclusions on the debate here, and the wider one going on the in the country, and there are 3 main points I took:

1 – Focus on what the EU is good at – belief that it can reform. 

The Italians in particular, Vincenzo Celeste & Domenico Siniscalco, having explained before, seemed committed to the idea that despite the EU’s failings, it can be reformed and changed by going through the usual channels – summit meetings, Council meetings, the Parliament, the Commission etc. This was shown in a response Celeste had to a question from the audience about Italy (which seemed to particularly incense him), in which he explained how the Italians square the circle of being committed to the Euro despite the fact Italy has not grown economically since 2000. He told us about all the official channels Italy was going through to ensure it is supported by the EU in its attempts to turn this situation around. The main thrust of this side of the europhile argument, to borrow the unfortunate term eurosceptics have for us (it implies some unholy, irrational and unnatural love for the EU, although I suppose in their eyes it is unnatural) is the focus on the positives of the EU, and the ability to change that which is broken about it. This poses the fundamental question about whether it can be reformed. There was much talk, from Siniscalco among others, about the positive influence Britain has on reform in the EU, being an advocate of change, business, streamlining, and overall challenging the system. However Münchau especially doubted the ability of Britain to reform the EU, highlighting the fact it is not part of its two most important projects (the Eurozone & Schengen). Furthermore, I heard an interesting comparison last night the second time which holds more water than it at first seems. Last week Slawoj Zizek made the same comparison at the Royal Festival Hall. That is, that the EU is like the USSR – big, cumbersome  and critically unnecessary bureaucracy, severe lack of democracy, and no desire from within its institutions to reform its practices and change. I’d take the analogy further and say that the USSR, when it reformed, did not survive, relying too much on its previous methods. Now, I believe that the EU could survive key reforms to its methods, but whether this come willingly from the top is another story.

2 – Britain’s idea of Europe

Britain’s idea of Europe is of course a key factor in this debate, chiefly the origins of the way Britons – and perhaps more specifically the English – think about the EU. There are 3 basic assumptions that English people, who fill most of UKIP and are considerably more anti-EU than the Scots, Irish or Welsh, have about Europe. That it is a federal government, or at least trying to be, that it usurped the position of an already existing and perfectly functioning government (which in many cases worked better than the EU one), and that this new government brought no benefits of its own to Britain. The fact is that all these assumptions are untrue. They come from the way the EU was initially sold to the British – that it was purely an economic affair, a free-trade agreement that would only bring benefits, and not lead to regulation, restriction of sovereignty etc. Whittle told the hall last night that it was admitted that 70% of Britain’s laws are at least ‘co-decided’ at the EU level. Whether that’s true or not, it sounds a lot worse than what it actually means. It’s not like Britain has to run 70% of its laws past some EU bureaucrat. However the EU does have oversight in areas, and creates much of its own legislature which Britain has to enact as a member-state.

A further reason that the English see Europe as some overbearing superstate, I think, is due to the nature of the United Kingdom, itself a union of a different, yet at the same time similar sort. A friend of mine from France analysed the situation as Britons believing they have their own union, and that they don’t believe in any other kind. However its not quite that.It’s the fact that Britain’s union has been one of English dominance ever since the beginning. To many, the words ‘English’ and ‘British’ are synonymous. This is precisely the issue, and one which the other members of the UK have with England. The fact is, the English inhabit the highest levels of the army, the civil service and the government. Laws are decided by the Westminster parliament in England. The Monarchy has always been based and established in England. This has never been an equal or federal union, but one imposed in centuries past by the English, who dominate in economic capacity, population size and once upon a time in military terms, and has not really changed since – they’ve always been in charge. This hegemony was first shaken off by Ireland in the years following WWI, and has since been challenged on many occasions, including the Troubles, which began in 1968, lasting until 1998, the idea of the ‘West-Lothian’ question, which has led to a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, as well as the recent Scottish referendum. Therefore, when the English think about what a higher level of union means, this is what they think off. The Scottish political elites, who have witnessed an overbearing centralised union, know better that the EU is different, and are more in favour. This, I think, is a key misconception at the heart of the issue. The EU is not like the United Kingdom. Although there is a democratic deficit, it has much greater capacity to be inclusive, as is far less centralised in any case.

3 – The EU is something that we have to live with

The main conclusion I drew from last night links back to the positive, though has a negative hint about it. Yes, the EU has many problems in it. It’s made mistakes. It hasn’t been managed well. It’s failed the peoples of Europe on many occasions and has not lived up to the expectations people set up for it. Professor Erik Jones, who works at the university SAIS Europe first pointed out to me last week that this is a key factor in understanding the loss of trust in the EU. But the fact is, no matter how many problems your country has, and no matter how much it seems they’ve been caused by the EU, leaving the EU is not going to fix them. Britain isn’t all of a sudden going to become an economic powerhouse which stands tall on the world stage as a superpower, simply by leaving Europe. The glory of the post-1945 era, the 50s, where Winston Churchill made his greatest hits tour, and Harold Macmillan led perhaps the last chapter of Britain’s golden age in world history, is not going to return after a Brexit. And what’s more, there are simply challenges in the modern world that did not then exist anyway. Challenges which the small European nation state cannot confront on its own. By pooling resources, and working as closely as possible, almost as a state, but a state of supranational democracy, not of centrally imposed hegemony, can we properly confront the challenges of the modern world. It’s a fact of the modern era. And we have to embrace it before it’s too late.