Quisling Nationalists
Why is it that Scottish & Welsh nationalists are Pro EU. How can it be better to be ruled from Brussels than from Westminster. If the Welsh and Scots feel that their voice is not heard in the UK how can it be heard in the EU with 7-8 times the population?
The reason for the question is the following statement by Lord Elis-Thomas.
Despite being a member of Plaid Cymru - which advocates the break-up of the United Kingdom to gain independence for Wales - the former MP said devolution could ensure the future of a politically unified Britain.
But not just a unified Britain:
"I think it is quite possible to have a United Kingdom within a united Europe.
I know that most regional aid (paid for twice over by us anyway) goes to our Celtic neighbours, but that would surely not continue if the UK were to break up. The amounts reflect the bargaining power of the UK, and the fact that these regions are poor relative to say London. As independent countries, they would be competing with Lithuania and Bulgaria for funds, with much less need for them.
5 comments:
Serf,
As a possible answer to your initial question:
The nationalist movements are statists and the EU represents statist nirvana.
They're not looking for a voice, they're looking for a handout. For so long as they are yoked to the Union there is always the chance - infuriatingly slim, but existing nevertheless - that the UK will leave the EU and those particular handouts will cease.
Then they're stuck with a nationalist agenda that removes them from the warm embrace of English welfare. In the fight between these two incompatible impulses the lining of pockets will prevail and the nationalists will never get in. So their pro-EU credentials must be widely advertised as security for if they ever become 'independent'.
Will Wales and Scotland have less need for funds than Lithuania et al? I wonder. If England pulled the rug then not only might they be nearly as poor as the above but the ensuing surge in unemployment and accompanying riots in the streets might embarass the EU sufficiently to make it a little more generous with 'their' cash.
A cynic might think they were just using these causes. English nationalists tend to be right-wing and anti-EU. An English parliament would naturally be more conservative than the UK parliament or the EU. Lefties tend to support the EU (which can push through their ideas from above) and Scottish & Welsh assemblies (which can implement their ideas regionally) but not an English parliament. In other words, both sides support the constitutional settlement that will advance their preferred policies.
Of course I am not cynical at all so I will suggest that they simply see the EU as a framework for providing things it would be difficult to do at a national level. For instance, a country the size of Scotland or Wales would need to trade more than a floating exchange might allow for.
I think you answered your own question. Anything is better than being ruled from Westminster, according to them.
It's simply down to the misconception that the EU is about 'cooperating nation-states', whereas the UK is about 'surpressing' the Celtic 'nations'.
A complete myth, is both cases of course.
Post a Comment