sexta-feira, maio 07, 2004
Constituição Europeia
No Daily Telegraph Tom Utley explica as razões pelas quais vai votar "Não" no referendo ao projecto constitucional.
Almost everything (...) that has come out of the EU - from the CAP [Política Agrícola Comum] to the 97,000 pages of European law to which we are now bound - has been a pain in the neck for Britain. We were prepared to bear all this bureaucratic meddling, and to pay a huge net contribution to the European budget, because we reckoned that this was a price worth paying for opening up all those lucrative markets to British goods and services.
Until somebody convinces me that I am wrong, I will think it absolutely marvellous if Brussels finds it increasingly difficult to pass new laws, and the torrent of directives from the commission dries up.
The fact is that Britain is very different from its partners. We depend more than any of them on trade with countries outside the EU. Our agriculture is far more efficient than most of theirs. Although there are many areas in which our interests coincide, there are many more in which they differ. For that reason, any move away from the national right of veto towards qualified majority voting will surely produce more bad decisions for Britain than good ones.
And why should Britain subscribe to a common European foreign policy? Can't the French, the Italians, the Latvians and the rest see that, from the British point of view, they are the foreigners - just as we are foreigners to them? Any foreign policy formulated in Brussels, based on the idea that the interests of all 25 nations of the EU are identical, must surely be based on a lie.
The case for voting No in the referendum seems to me to be blindingly obvious. I only wish that there were somebody in the other camp capable of explaining the case for voting Yes. And no waffle, please, about hearts, top tables and boats.
posted by Miguel Noronha 3:02 da tarde
Comments:
Enviar um comentário
