EU referendum: we have to get out
Tuesday 23 July 2013
 He was taking part in a question-and-answer session at Crewe's Bentley car plant, today, when he was forced to defend his position. Asked directly whether uncertainty would result, he replied: "I think a greater uncertainty would be to put your head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem with Europe. There is a problem and I'm going to fix it". That is never going to happen, but there is no getting away from the fact that a referendum is now firmly on the political agenda, and with that the possibility of leaving the EU. A few years ago, that was being dismissed as an unrealistic dream by those inside the bubble, those who rather grandly call themselves the "mainstream" and who still think they are controlling the debate. The Sunday Times last weekend actually took on board as aspect of that "debate" - some of the points we have been raising for ages - in its reporting of the IEA's "Brexit" prize. It had Nigel Lawson declaring that "Britain has not done enough serious thinking on what the implications of a Brexit would be". He thus argued that the IEA's prize will help to "focus the minds" of the nation on this very real possibility. "If there is going to be a referendum, then it's very important the issue is debated", he says. Lawson went on to say that, "The psychology of the British people is ' better keep a-hold of nurse for fear of finding worse'. So it's very important that we can spell out what the consequences would be. So when a referendum comes, there won't be a great black box; there will be a route map". This is only what many of us have been saying for over a decade, and it perhaps illustrates how long it takes for a theme to penetrate to "clever-dick" level and become lodged "above the line", as the received wisdom. I really do have to say, though, that it is a terrible indictment of Nigel Farage that it wasn't him articulating the words coming from Lawson. He's had a decade or more head start on this and now is trailing badly behind in the debate. To that extent, the IEA is to be commended for its initiative, although I see great danger in focusing the issues on the economics. We need to find a way of securing economic prosperity, without locking ourselves into a construct dedicated to securing political integration and the creation of a federal United States of Europe. Therefore, the purpose of leaving is not to secure a better, brighter economic future. If it was, then it would be valid to argue that, should membership of the European Union afford us unarguable economic advantages, then we should remain a member of the Union. Thus, we seek to leave the EU on a point of principle – that we want no part of this mad continental ambition of political unity. But, in leaving, we need to minimise the economic perturbation and to secure mechanisms which enable us to do those things which we used to do from within the EU but which must now be done from without. Were it that simple, we might perhaps have left years ago but, in addition, we must convince our fellow voters that leaving is something worth doing. Most people have little idea of the extent to which the EU governs our lives, and therefore are indifferent to its depredations. This must change. Nevertheless, we are making progress, and even today I shall be in London, at the RAF Club of all places, speaking to the Military Commentators' Circle about leaving the EU. That indeed is a measure of how far we have come. There is no "uncertainty" here. We have to get out. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 23/07/2013 |
EU politics: competences - the wrong question
Tuesday 23 July 2013
 For the exercise to have been worthwhile, it should have gone further. The essence of what we needed to know was, given the advantages (and there are some) and disadvantages of membership of the EU: are there any mechanisms or arrangements by which we can enjoy the advantages, while reducing or eliminating the disadvantages of EU membership? In the event that neither criterion is entirely satisfied (in that we lose some of the advantages, and do not eliminate all the disadvantages), the question then evolves to this: would the loss of advantages arising from leaving the European Union be compensated for by the advantages in leaving, sufficient to make the exercise worthwhile (i.e., in the national interest), in the short and longer term. Yet, to this, there is no objective answer. The conclusion must depend on the relative value placed economic issues, your assessment of the balance of advantage arising in this field, then compared with governance, social and other issues which are affected by our membership. If democratic governance rates high in the estimation of the beholder, and issues such as sovereignty are held to be paramount, then there is no question. We must leave. If such issues are of less value, and can be traded for greater "influence" within the EU, then those persons who enjoy such influence will argue for remaining a member of the EU. To that extent, whether we should remain in the EU depends on who you are, your position in society and, especially, any position you might hold in government. If your job is such that working with the EU is seen as necessary or convenient, or even a "fact of life" with no obvious alternative, then you will want to stay in the EU. If you are an outsider, and can see different ways of achieving those things which are held desirable by EU advocates, and hold the disadvantage of less "influence" within the EU – while wishing, say, to avoid the political integration which goes with membership, then leaving the EU becomes the obvious choice. In short, there is no simple answer to the question, should we stay in the EU. It is really a matter of power. We stay in because the government wants to stay in, and has the power to hold the status quo. When enough people decide that they want to leave, and want this sufficiently to pose a threat to the power base of the political classes, then we will leave. Until then, we will have governments carrying out these fruitless exercises – because they are in their interests to do so. Meanwhile, we will continue to address the question of whether the loss of advantages arising from leaving the European Union be compensated for by the advantages in leaving, sufficient to make the exercise worthwhile (i.e., in the national interest), in the short and longer term. The answer, we believe, is "yes", but until that question is fairly put and properly answered, we are not going to make as much progress as we would like. COMMENT: "REVIEW OF COMPETENCES" THREAD Richard North 23/07/2013 |
EU politics: Whitehall likes EU shock!
Tuesday 23 July 2013
 There is lots of meat for eurosceptics and europhiles alike, he says. Each can choose what they wish to further their arguments. But that is all. The debate may be more informed but it has not changed. The problem is, reviewing these reports is like paddling in a septic tank. The next one I've been looking at Animal Health and Welfare and Food Safety Report, which covers areas in which EU policy density is particularly high. It is turgid beyond extreme. Mercifully, the report is "only" 69 pages. With this and the energy stuff, I've looked at over 300 pages of officialese in one slug over the lest 24-hours. No one can really absorb this – and they don't. You dip in, fillet it and move on. But this is no way to run a railroad. One interesting bit we pull out is in the introduction of this current report, from which we e learn that consumer survey data suggests that UK consumers are largely unaware of the role the EU plays in making food law. Only 11 percent preferred food law to be made by the EU, although this figure rose to 23 percent when people were given some information about EU legislation. And there you go: in Europe and run by Europe, but most people don't actually realise. Yet, we sort of knew that from the horsemeat fraud. But if people don't even recognise an EU failure when it happens, it is difficult to get informed comment. In fact, that one thing – horsemeat fraud – illustrates the fatuity of this entire review. We could write (and effectively have written) hundreds of pages on evaluating just this one aspect of EU law. Thus, for all the length, 69 pages in this report can only glide of the issues. It cannot and does not do justice to them. This we see especially in page 50, headed "International issues". Half a page is devoted to Codex, and the other half to OIE, and then another page looks at these organisations and the WTO. Look at how many pages on this blog we've devoted to Codex, and you immediately realise just how thin this report really is. In six short paragraphs, the issue of "Global standards rather than EU competence" is rehearsed. Some respondents such as attendees at the Brussels Workshop, we are told, questioned whether or not being locked into an EU position at Codex served the UK's national interest. The Agricultural Industries Confederation was also concerned that UK interests were diluted by EU representation at Codex. And then respondents such as Dundee City Council argued that the EU has a more powerful voice than the UK as it speaks as one united bloc of 28 different Member States. Similarly, Cefas argued that the EU was highly influential when negotiating within the OIE. Look at three pieces we have done, here, here and here, and there is far more argument and relevant detail than you will find in the entire report, much less these trivial little snatches. What emerges is that the civil service, with the backing of the FCO, is reporting what it wants to find. According to the Financial Times, a senior government official says: "In none of these areas did the balance of evidence suggest the balance of competences was not broadly appropriate". Another one said, "We are happy with the overall balance of evidence. The exercise is not to reach definitive Government judgments in these things". The review had not been "designed to produce recommendations or make EU policy". The exercise is actually a complete waste of time and effort. By the time the EU referendum debate gets under way – if it ever does – this exercise will be gone and forgotten. The two reports we have so far looked at have settled nothing, and the others are unlikely to deliver anything of significance. COMMENT: "REVIEW OF COMPETENCES" THREAD Richard North 23/07/2013 |
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Posts
