We still don't know when the referendum will be held on the UK's membership of the European Union but, to much fanfare, the first Welsh debate was hosted last night in Cardiff by the Institute of Welsh Affairs (IWA) and Cardiff University, with the First Minister lining up against UKIP leader, Nigel Farage MEP.
The debate will be repeated in a special episode of Sharp End on ITV Wales tonight (12th January) at 10:40pm, so to use the footballing parlance – "If you don't want to know the score, look away now." You can also watch it on Wales Online (here).
I wasn't going to do anything on the referendum until we know precisely what "deal" David Cameron will get. I was hoping I would've retired from blogging before that campaign-proper started, to be honest.
Nonetheless, the seriousness of the subject matter forced my hand in giving it the focus it warrants.
Opening Statements
Nigel Farage described it as the "first big debate in the UK" and timely considering the referendum could be held as soon as this summer. He questioned whether people had thought about what EU membership means, and whether they want the UK to be a "normal, self-governing nation". The debate "wasn't about Europe", but about the European Union – a political union with the trappings of a nation state. The UK should make its own trade deals and be in charge of its own industries like steel and fishing, while free-movement rules have put strain on health and social security systems.
Carwyn Jones said politicians will always offer "easy answers to complicated questions", but this is a serious debate about our future. Wales is part of two unions that provide security and prosperity – but neither's perfect. As decisions are made "by those who turn up", we need to work within the EU to change it instead of walking away. 200,000 Welsh jobs are with EU-headquartered companies, 43% of Welsh trade is with EU member states and many students travel to the EU to work or study. Leaving the EU would send a message that companies are no longer welcome here.
The Discussion
The host, Adrian Masters, put the first question to them - can the EU be reformed in the UK's interest?
Carwyn quoted the CBI who said every household benefits from EU membership to the tune of £3,000. He accepts the EU needs reform – more transparency, no moving between Brussels and Strasbourg, more power to the EU Parliament – however, we can't risk leaving the world's biggest economy. On what powers he would like repatriated, he pointed to benefit curbs for EU migrants, which Nigel joked was Tory policy.
Nigel himself said "reform" means something different to Brussels than the rest of us, having led to a greater centralisation of power and probably resulting in another major treaty by 2020. People could vote to remain if powers over immigration and laws are repatriated, but none of those are on the table. Plus, the French would never vote to base the EU Parliament solely in Brussels.
When suggesting most laws are made in Brussels, Carwyn pressed him to name them. Nigel said 75% of laws was a conservative estimate, but Carwyn accused him of making it up as he went along, pointing out it was based on German (a eurozone member) figures, not UK.
The next question was would either of you accept that jobs could be lost by an EU withdrawal?
Farage was adamant a withdrawal would create jobs, with small businesses spending "25% of their working week" complying with EU regulations; we need to deregulate and get off their backs. He cited an example of a Swansea e-cig factory which has had problems with EU directives, and the fact the UK imports more from the EU than it exports (in Wales it's actually the other way around).
Adrian turned to Carwyn; where do you get 200,000 jobs figure from?
Carwyn explained the figure was the number of people who work for companies headquartered in EU member states – like Airbus and TATA. These big employers have told him it's important to retain access to the single market.
Nigel said global trade was interdependent, and the fact Airbus in Broughton makes wings means without them there would be no Airbus planes in the first place. He told Carwyn to stop scaremongering, and the CBI had been "wrong about everything since the gold standard".
The next question focused on problems in the steel industry; had EU rules cost steel jobs? (See also : Assembly takes a ride on Heavy Metal; Assembly Calls for Steel Industry Support).
Carwyn repeated what had been said in Assembly debates (linked above); the problems are down to a glut of steel on the world market, a strong pound and high energy costs. The UK Government hadn't done anything to solve latter and TATA executives hadn't mentioned EU rules to him during meetings.
Nigel had "20 years experience in the metals industry" and blamed the problem on Chinese steel dumping in Europe following their economic slowdown. The UK should've done something about it but couldn't because they don't have the power within the single market.
Carwyn posed that if Port Talbot's Dutch sister plant in Ijmuiden would be in the EU but Port Talbot outside, where would companies invest? He also accused Nigel of "doing absolutely nothing" on the steel industry as an MEP.
Nigel knew where his money would go, and claims he voted again and again against over-bureaucratic directives.
Next, is EU structural funding a good thing for Wales?
The First Minister said the EU funded training programmes like Jobs Growth Wales, while Welsh farmers rely on subsidies and access to the EU market.
Nigel said it was "arguable", suggesting that based on what the UK pays to the EU, Wales pays £1billion a year and gets back about £500million (it's probably more than that), with 40% of that being agricultural support. Any suggestion that withdrawal would threaten farming was ludicrous as farming "wasn't invented in 1975".
Carwyn asked why put the £260million farmers receive at risk? Nigel said that the ability to sell into non-EU markets was restricted and withdrawl would enable them to tap into new markets.
Carwyn responded by saying the UK would have to negotiate free trade deals with 50 countries as well as the EU. Farage cited Switzerland, and warned of TTIP, which could open the NHS to American companies. He would rather be independent and rich, and the likes of Norway and Switzerland can veto EU rules they disagree with whilst benefiting from the single market.
Carwyn pointed out the fact that the Swiss and Norwegians still have to pay to access the market, meaning EU withdrawal wouldn't save any money and result in the UK being bound to rules the UK would have no say over; plus, immigration to Switzerland and Norway was twice as high as the EU average.
Moving onto immigration, Adrian asked whether remaining or leaving EU would make a difference?
Carwyn said "none whatsoever." He accepted the need for a proper debate on immigration, but didn't see how UKIP's proposal for an Australian-style points system would work. If the UK adopted the Swiss model, there would be 390,000 extra migrants, while the Syrian refugee crisis requires a pan-European solution.
Nigel was more combative, saying Labour has spouted "baloney" on immigration for years. The EU now means that British passports are "shared by 485million people" with a free right to come to Britain. You "didn't need to be a rocket scientist" to see the problems that would occur once the former Warsaw Pact were admitted to the EU, and the damage free movement has done to efforts to curb criminals.
Carwyn retorted by saying we won't know who's coming here (in terms of criminals and terrorists) if we withdraw from EU security cooperation.
Lastly, can the UK survive and thrive outside the EU?
Carwyn told the audience it would be a mistake to gamble leaving our largest market. The UK isn't an isolationist country, and there's no vision for what the UK would be like outside the EU.
Nigel said we don't need to pay anything to the EU and can cut foreign aid too. Whether the UK would be better or worse off is a matter of opinion, but if we left the political union, the UK would become a self-governing "proper" democracy.
Audience Questions
 |
| Some of the audience questions underlined public unease and suspicion about the EU. (Pic : Wales Online) |
1. What do we get back from £55million we pay each day to the EU?
Carwyn listed £2billion this year in structural funding, money for training programmes, support for the new university campus in Swansea as well as farming.
Nigel said agricultural subsidies make sense, but large chunks of the money go on "inflated salaries to the political class" (said without irony) and "street furniture in Pontypool". The net daily contribution from the UK was £34million.
2. Would you support United States of Europe or a United Kingdom?
Carwyn supports both, and pointed to the reality of a "two-speed Europe" between the eurozone and the rest. Nigel said the EU already has a flag, anthem and is "desperate to have an army" (see also : Wales& the World VII : Foreign Policy & Defence). It has all the attributes of a nation state, and voting for the status quo would be a vote for closer integration.
3. If EU rules were removed, which ones would you replace with national rules (on matters like product safety, accounting and health and safety)?
Nigel balked, saying the EU didn't have its own accounts signed off for 20 years. The problem is we apply the same legislation to companies with 3 employees as we do to those employing 1,000. Carwyn said workers' rights aren't a negative and Nigel's proposals would create second class workers if obligations were removed for small businesses.
4. What support is there for British workers who are replaced by migrants?
This was the closest thing to a controversy, with Carwyn flatly refusing to believe it and demanding to know which companies the audience member was referring to. When he's travelled to speak to employers, employees speak English and are mainly locals.
It was refreshing to hear a politician call out members of the public on something to be honest - they need to do it more often.
5. Do you think of yourself as "European"?
Nigel considers himself European in cultural terms, but not in political or nationality terms. Carwyn was "primarily a Welshman", but also British and European. He doesn't want to choose between those identities, and doesn't believe Wales should be a nation state (independent) either.
6. Would leaving the EU threaten the break up of the UK?
Carwyn bluntly said yes, saying the Northern Ireland peace process had EU membership as a clause. He was worried that if Scotland and England voted differently, the Scots would vote to secede in a second independence referendum.
Nigel dismissed the idea, saying Luton might vote to stay and the rest leave. The vote is a whole UK vote and a collective result, suggesting attitudes are "identical" between Wales and England.
7. Carwyn's stance is contradictory; you want to take powers away from Westminster but at the same time give power to Brussels?
Carwyn emphasised the importance of harmonised trade rules across the EU. Nigel said competition between European countries could only be a good and healthy thing.
8. In event of a UK withdrawal, how would you guarantee equivalent sums of structural funding for Wales?
Nigel repeated that funds aren't being spent wisely, and the benefits from the UK vastly outweigh benefits from the EU. Carwyn couldn't make any guarantees, and it was a bad idea to "take a shot in the dark" when the money is already on the table.
9. When did the political class lose confidence in Wales' ability to stand on its own too feet?
Carwyn denied losing confidence and wants to remain part of two unions that benefit Wales. Nigel "believes in Britain" and those who would vote to remain are happy with laws being made somewhere else.
10. Is it unfair that EU students are eligible for Welsh Government assistance, but English student aren't?
Carwyn sympathised but said it's down to the UK Government to offer English students support. Nigel said it was bizarre that rules "discriminate" against English students but not EU students.
11. Do you think the EU has brought peace and stability?
Nigel accepted the idea that French and Germans should work together after several serious wars. However, peace was assured through NATO and the American nuclear deterrent. The "EU project" is about power, not reconciliation, and Europe looks more politically unstable than it has been for decades.
Carwyn said Europe's history was "one of war" and has been at peace for decades, again citing the improved situation in Northern Ireland as an example of positive EU influence.
12. Why doesn't anyone think UK can rule itself after ruling itself for 1,000 years?
Carwyn explained that the UK, as it is, has only existed since 1920. It's been a nation state for many years with its own passport controls and no free movement as we're outside the Schengen area. It makes no sense for Europe to fragment into smaller states each with their own trade rules.
Closing Statements
Nigel concluded by suggesting the arguments presented were similar to those given 15 years ago about joining the euro. We don't need political union to buy and sell goods from, or to, each other and "don't need to be bribed with our own money" into dependence. The UK needs to get rid of bad laws through the ballot box, "take back our birthright" and regain our democracy.
Carwyn said this was about more than Europe; it was about "money in people's pockets", opportunities for young people and attracting and keeping jobs. He accepts there need to be curbs on immigration but not arbitrary limits. The UK would still have to pay to be a member of the single market and follow EU rules without any say in those rules. He also suggested leaving the EU would make it more difficult for the UK to stay together. He doesn't want Wales or the UK to "surrender its influence in the world."
Conclusions & Analysis
 |
| (Pic : BBC Wales) |
Carwyn took a gamble putting himself forward and it hasn't paid off.
He certainly won on facts, but lost the "theatre of the debate" and although I would call it a score draw (that assessment's being generous to Carwyn and mainly down to over-enthusiastic whooping from kippers in the audience which skewed perceptions) it's clear why many people are saying Nigel Farage won.
When under pressure in the Senedd chamber, Carwyn throws questions back at his opponents to lock them down and it's something opposition AMs have failed to adapt to. That tactic didn't work this time and played right into Nigel's hands as it gave him further opportunties to speak. Plus, using ad hominem attacks on Farage made Carwyn, in turn, look haughty in the way Welsh Labour usually are – even though the facts were on his side.
As Alun Davies AM (Lab, Blaenau Gwent) insinuated on his blog yesterday, UKIP/Team Leave need this to become a debate between an "out of touch" political establishment and the anti-politics "people's movement". They deal with emotion and gut instinct, not facts and logic.
Team Remain have to choke off populist arguments (or even come up with some of their own) and need to present their case in a way that appeals to the public without threatening them. If this is an example of what we're going to hear from Team Remain in the run up to the referendum, they're in big trouble and it all sounds all too similar to the "Project Fear" mistakes the no side made in Scotland during 2014.
At points Farage even sounded reasonable. There wasn't much controversy, all in all it was actually a pretty decent debate. He was making some of the same arguments, as a Welsh nationalist, I would make for Welsh independence (for example : you don't need a political union to trade, the majority of our laws are made somewhere else with us having little influence over them). It's just with a different perspective. The big difference is that the UK is an independent nation state, and Team Leave are arguing for something I believe they already have and are keen to deny the Welsh.
As a result, despite what Plaid might say, Welsh nationalists have feet in both camps, although I presume the majority of nationalists support EU membership as a surrogate union. That leaves us in a bind – as nationalists who support EU membership, we have to explain why ceding sovereignty to Brussels is any better than ceding sovereignty to London.
As Borthlas has, as always, rightly pointed out too, the arguments have to be beyond economics - Carwyn seemed over-reliant on money and job arguments. Self-respect, identity and sovereignty count for a lot.
Labour have as much to fear from UKIP as any of the other parties going into the Assembly election, and you could – at its base level – consider this the first debate of that election as much as it was about the EU.
Labour should count themselves fortunate that it's unlikely this debate will have much of an impact, because if it did, it would probably have given UKIP in Wales a shot in the arm.
0 comments:
Post a Comment