EU politics: Bruges Group – consistently on the ball
Thursday 18 July 2013
 Respondents were told that the European Economic Area (EEA) "is the single market that allows for free movement of goods, services, people and capital between all participating European countries". They were then told that, "There are two organisations which allow countries to access this EEA single market - the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)". Next, there were told something Mr Cameron and the media at large really do not want them to know: "The UK could remain a member of the single market if it left the EU and joined the EFTA". And to conclude, they were advised that: Unlike the EU, the EFTA does not involve itself in countries' agriculture, fisheries, home affairs or justice policies, and allows countries to negotiate free trade agreements with any outside countries. The UK would have to adopt 60% fewer regulations and pay around £3bn less in budget contributions if it was in the EFTA instead of the EU, but would have less power to influence the rules of the single market.At that point came the question: "With this in mind, which would you prefer the UK to be a member of?" And, hardly to anyone's surprise, 54.3 percent preferred EFTA/EEA. While 22.2 percent went for EU/EEA. A relatively large 23.5 percent recorded "don't know". Translated by the only national newspaper that recorded the survey, the Daily Express, this has 71 percent of those who responded wanting to leave the EU – which is not exactly the point. As Robert Oulds, Bruges Group Director, says, "This poll not only adds to the growing body of evidence that a majority of the British people are realising that Britain would be better off out of the European Union but it also shows that there is a viable alternative to EU membership". He adds: "The option of re-joining EFTA and becoming like Norway and Switzerland is very popular with the British public". This is another plus-mark for Robert Oulds, who has been consistently on the ball when it comes to EU issues, earlier supporting the idea of an Article 50 extraction, while organisation such as UKIP have yet to come up with definitive statement on this issue. As far as EFTA/EEA goes, UKIP have published the Bruges Group story, although the party remains more than a little equivocal on the matter. Its last word (and there have not been many) was published in 2010, although "refreshed" on 26 April 2013. This tells us that, "there would be … little benefit in terms of trade and its deregulation. All we would be doing would be removing what little influence we had in EU councils while being forced to accept the non-political decisions taken there". As a result, "UKIP will not seek post-EU membership of the EEA". Nevertheless, we were told, UKIP believes that "membership of EFTA might be an attractive option for post-EU Britain, and would help to calm the spurious fears about EU exit promoted by the three main political parties". "Were the EFTA course to be adopted", though, "it would be necessary to seek far-reaching reform of EFTA's organisation to avoid undue, negative influence from Brussels". This is another of those classic missteps from UKIP, which swallows the europhile propaganda line whole, and regurgitates it. And with that, it has opted out of the "Brexit" debate so far that it is left stranded by the IEA initiative. That development is something the party has not even deigned to report on its website – when you might have thought that it would be encouraging its members to submit exit plans. Type "Brexit" into the UKIP search box and you will get "no results". The Economist blog, however, chooses to publicise the IEA's "Brexit" competition, but not the Bruges Group poll. It, like the media at large, really does not want the British public thinking in terms of viable alternatives. Its last reference to EFTA/EEA was in December 2010, when it has this to say: If Britain were to join the Norwegian club, though, it would remain bound by virtually all EU regulations, including the working-time directive and almost everything dreamed up in Brussels in future. Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker.Compare that pastiche with what Mary Ellen Synon had to say, and you begin to see quite how distorted the "debate" has become in the pages of the legacy media. Most papers were prepared to give space to the recent launch of British Influence, another platform for the Europhiles, with the backing of the BBC, making a stunning contrast with the absence of publicity on the Bruges Group poll. The thing is that we are not even into a referendum campaign, and the media coverage is already dangerously skewed. Come the real thing and the "British Influence" manifesto is a taste of the propaganda to come. Despite – or because of – our more popular message, as evidenced by the Bruges Group, we will be struggling for a hearing. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 18/07/2013 |
Media: an episode of candour
Thursday 18 July 2013
 Here is pure magic from a journalist who actually gets it, a master of her craft who is honest enough to write the truth: The fact is that if Britain leaves the EU it will have far more influence on international trading policies set by organisations such as UNECE than it does as a member of the EU. Britain will not be "isolated", it will be empowered, freed from memos from the Foreign Office reminding the British negotiating team of EU "positions".Mary Ellen is good enough to acknowledge the blog on this. Alongside Dellers and, of course, Booker, that means we are getting some exposure. And we know that other journalists read our posts, but never, ever quote them, much less link to them. In Mary Ellen's case, she also brings some additional and valuable comments to the table, focusing on the latest developments on the Icelandic response to the latest EU threats on mackerel. They make her tale a powerful story that would be at home on the pages of any serious newspaper. But none of the British media cover it, even though we have a dog in the fight. Intelligent and comprehensive analysis of this issue would show the bully-boy EU to be wrong and the Icelanders and the Faroese in the right. As importantly, the issue demonstrates the power ofbeing independent. Any of this is open to any journalist. But only Mary Ellen has the honesty and integrity to tell this particular story, and then only for the Irish Mail. Her lucidity and candour tells its own tale, and puts her colleagues to shame. The worst of it, though, is that the silence of the British media can't be accidental. There is an agenda at work here, in an industry where publishing objective news seems to be the last and least of its objectives - especially when it comes to the EU. They are worthy of contempt, and should get it in good measure. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 18/07/2013 |
Posts
