From today's Financial Times:
Britain needs to adopt a hard-headed approach founded on the national interest – and hold a referendum
I love the idea of "national interest". But I am afraid it is one of the vaguest ideas on the market. It is subject to so many interpretations. The "national interest" as perceived by a banker in London is very different from the one understood by a shop floor vendor in Birmingham, or a a young graduate in Durham. Not to mention people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Even a staff writer at the Financial Times will see it differently from a journo at The Sun next door.
Is there a good step-by-step guideline on how to define the "national interest" of a given country? I don't think so. But in a case like this one, the future of the relationship between the UK and Europe cannot just be defined by Conservative politicians or by a coalition government that is above all a marriage of convenience. It would require ample debate at Westminster and a broad consensus in the Commons.
Britain needs to adopt a hard-headed approach founded on the national interest – and hold a referendum
I love the idea of "national interest". But I am afraid it is one of the vaguest ideas on the market. It is subject to so many interpretations. The "national interest" as perceived by a banker in London is very different from the one understood by a shop floor vendor in Birmingham, or a a young graduate in Durham. Not to mention people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Even a staff writer at the Financial Times will see it differently from a journo at The Sun next door.
Is there a good step-by-step guideline on how to define the "national interest" of a given country? I don't think so. But in a case like this one, the future of the relationship between the UK and Europe cannot just be defined by Conservative politicians or by a coalition government that is above all a marriage of convenience. It would require ample debate at Westminster and a broad consensus in the Commons.
