De Thatcher a Cameron

Hace 21 años, en 1990, Thatcher tuvo un enfrentamiento similar al de Cameron hoy, sobre la pertenencia de RU a la moneda única. En http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/, de Marcus Nunes, hay un enlace que reproduce las actas parlamentarias del debate de entonces.
 M. Thatcher pagó con su dimisión la osadía de haberse enfrentado a la corriente centralizadora y unitarista. Pero su defensa de la soberanía inglesa -algo que a nosotros nos suena como algo excéntrico-, vale la pena leerla: son palabras vivas y, a mí me parece, llenas de simple sentido común. Sobre todo, conoce muy bien las consecuencias económicas de una sola moneda: con 20 años de antelación predice lo que va  pasar. Es una predicción económica plenamente cumplida. ¿Por qué aquí nos empeñamos en ocultar y no aprender de lo que vemos diariamente? No todos podemos estar tan bien informados como Thatcher, pero cojones, podríamos mirar con los ojos, ¿no?

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)  Will my right hon. Friend [the PM, Mrs Thatcher] take time between now and the conference in December to explain to her European colleagues what any first-year economic student could tell them, which is that the imposition of a single currency, as opposed to a common currency, would rule out for all time the most effective means of adjusting for national differences in costs and prices? Will she explain that that in turn would cause widespread unemployment, which would probably exist on a perpetual basis, and very serious financial imbalances?

The Prime Minister: I think that I would put it just a little differently from the right hon. Gentleman [Tony Benn], although I recognise some of the force of some of the points that he makes. When the Delors proposals for economic and monetary union came out, it was said immediately by my right hon. Friend [ Nigel Lawson ] the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was not really about monetary policy at all but about a back door to a federal Europe, taking many democratic powers away from democratically elected bodies and giving them to non-elected bodies. I believe fervently that that is true, which is why I shall have nothing to do with their definition of economic and monetary union.

We shall continue the co-operation that we have come to establish, as nation states. The Act that enabled us to go into Europe was passed on Second Reading by eight votes and it was made very clear then that we would not surrender our national identity, that it was a matter of co-operation. It was on the strength of that that many people went in. I am afraid that it would be quite different if we went for a single European currency and a central bank and for their definition of economic and monetary union.

 The Prime Minister: I think that it is wrong to think that all the Twelve have similar votes or influence in these matters. I think that some in Germany—only some—are backing the scheme because they know that the dominant voice, the predominant voice, on any central bank would be the German voice. If we did not retain our national identities in Europe, the dominant people in Europe would be German. The way to balance out the different views of Europe, as we have traditionally done throughout history, is by retaining our national identity.