Europe: the elusive case for staying put.........

 

With my customary seeking after balance, I have been looking for the case for staying in the EU. It’s hard to find.

 

Boris Johnson and Alistair Campbell have been giving views in the DT and the Times respectively.

 

 

First, Bojo.

 

Foreign direct investment. There may be a risk (though this is far from proven) that international companies and funds could be put off from investing in the UK by the notion that Britain has somehow cut itself off from a giant European market.

 

We may be putting UK firms at a long-term disadvantage if we are no longer able to influence the setting of standards and regulations in Brussels.

 

Global influence. The EU is arguably better placed to strike trade deals with the US, or China, than the UK on its own, though this proposition is plainly untested, and the idea of an EU “Common Foreign Policy” is plainly a joke. Where was the EU on Iraq, or Libya? What, come to that, is the EU position on the Falklands?

 

Perception of UK. It is often said that our strategic significance for the Americans or the Chinese depends on our membership of the EU; though, again, this is untested. More generally, there is a risk that leaving the EU will be globally interpreted as a narrow, xenophobic, backward-looking thing to do.

 

Next, Campbell.

 

He says that it is estimated (by whom?) that 3 million jobs depend upon on trade with the EU. However, it is correct, as Boris says, that we would have to comply with EU regulations, without being able to influence them, when exporting to Europe. This rather demolishes the argument that Norway does pretty well trading with the EU without being bound by it.

 

He says that there are cases in which pooling of sovereignty makes sense and can bring rewards; and that being in the EU adds to our influence in the world.

 

And that’s about it; half a ‘comment’ page of waffle.

 

The jobs argument seems to rest on the ludicrous proposition that we would lose all our EU trade. He does make one sound point, however, which is that Britain’s foreign-owned car industry came here specifically to get a foothold on the European market. Would we continue to attract such FDI?

 

He gives no examples of pooled sovereignty and I am not aware of any outside the EU.

 

As to influence in the world, Boris has already rubbished that notion.

 

The main issues raised by both sides to date are largely financial and economic. Some  are fallacious, spurious or not evidence-based. For example, does Darling seriously imagine that Toyota, Honda and Nissan would be priced out of Europe by punitive tariffs? Protectionism always leads to retaliation, and loss of the British market would have a serious impact on France’s already fragile motor industry.

 

And financial issues tend to favour the ‘outs’; the EU is a by-word for excessive expenditure, inefficiency, waste and corruption.

 

But to my way of thinking, this is the wrong argument. It is aimed too much at the ‘what’s in it for me’ tendency. There should be more stress on British sovereignty, on the supremacy of Parliament and the Courts, control of our borders, the abuses stemming from the wretched EAW, the intervention of the ECJ in both criminal and civil law,  the constant meddling in our private lives and in matters which should not be the concern of politicians, such as  making women pay the same premiums as men for car insurance and annuities even though they are a lower risk, regulating the cleanliness of our beaches, and countless other absurdities.

 

The key issue is libertarian; it’s about democracy, not rule by unelected officials based in a foreign country.

 

Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

 

Two years notice is needed. Perhaps Cameron should give notice now, so that Britain can get out immediately after the Referendum. That should concentrate minds in Brussels.