Quote:
|
Robin Cook, on Sky News has made the case for the EU providing a balance against the US now they seem to be going down a unilateral route. I can see this becoming more and more of battle cry from the Europhile camp.
|
I agree that we are going to hear a lot of this argument in the coming days, weeks and years. Unfortunately, just at the moment I can't think of a good answer to it. I hope somebody else here can.
The problem is this: our futures mustn't depend any more on what the American voters do. We mustn't ever again be in a position where it matters so much.
This time our futures did depend on them. Firstly because Blair sucks up to Bush at every opportunity and will probably throw British troops INTO phpbb_more of Bush's wretched pre-emptive wars. North Korea anyone? Syria, maybe? Secondly the Bush administration doesn't negotiate with smaller countries - it just tells them what to do. If the EU was as big and powerful as the US, then the US couldn't just ignore it's views but would have to negotiate with it whether they wanted to or not. So no, I don't think that Cook's is a ridiculous argument. Actually, though, there is one weakness with Cook's argument. Just because the USA had to negotiate agreements with the EU, it wouldn't necessarily follow that those agreements were in the interests of Britain.
I think the only remaining chance other than throwing ourselves INTO phpbb_the EU's embrace is to:
(1) kick Bliar out at the next election - which means UKIP focusing primarily on winning votes from Labour rather than from the Tories. There may well be Labour MPs who have simply had enough of Blair and his lies but lack the stomach to join the Tories. We should recruit them. A coalition government led by almost anyone other than Bliar would pursue a line independent of the US in Iraq and elsewhere, and about time too.
(2) do what we can to support the United Nations. The USA will turn back to multilateralism in foreign policy one day. We need to preserve the structures until it does.