Meeting held on Monday 7 March 2016
8 people were present and 5 gave their apologies
The situation regarding refugees, the European Union and the Referendum, were themes linked in several ways. Underlying our discussion of them was a growing sense of chaos. But were things really more chaotic than ‘normal’ or was it, perhaps, that we have come to expect continuity and stability when, in fact, politics is rarely thus? And was such unpredictability something to be feared, or might this provide opportunities for progressive change?
If UK were to leave EU this could initiate the break-up of the EU, as well as of the UK (since it could lead to Scottish independence). Our general feeling was in support of the European political “Project” and so the possibility of its demise was to be feared. However, when we came to discuss the refugee crisis, the performance of the EU, and especially some East European members, was not a good expression of the values of the European Project. Neither was the performance of the EU over Greece and its financial situation. We would want the European Project (providing protection for workers, the environment and human rights) to receive more attention than the purely economic considerations. We felt particularly concerned that the referendum campaigns (on both sides) seemed to be devoid of any understanding of the political situation we face regarding membership. In fact, when we came to reflect upon such things as the European Court of Human Rights, the Council and other bodies, our understanding was limited. Decisions to remain or leave the EU were therefore likely to be motivated more by a gut feeling and values, rather than firm knowledge.
We noted how the German response to the refugee crisis was more humane than the British. Although German demographics (the prospect of too small a working population to support the retired) favoured an inflow of migrant workers, the German response appeared to be motivated by a very real humane concern. Such values should be at the heart of the EU, and it was shameful that the British government (and its concern to ‘reform’ the EU) was driven by self-interest and narrowness.
Instability was also reflected in the financial situation, with even the ex-director of the Bank of England forecasting financial crisis if real changes were not made in banking arrangements. While we had little fondness for the banks, or concern to protect them, the possibility of chaos in the banks was not to be taken lightly.
We had a more positive view of the news that the Finance Director of EDF was to resign because he didn’t believe Hinckley Nuclear Power Station was financially viable, although it underpinned the incoherence of the government’s energy policy.