|  |
Home |  | |
Events | | |
Contact Us | | |
Links | |
|
In this section
- News RSS |
|
Friday, 26 June, 2009 
From time to time I get asked my views on Europe to which I reply. Inevitably the answer does not satisfy the person asking the question and this is because the person who asks the question invariably holds one of two positions. The two positions I will call the ‘Inners’ and the ‘Outers’. An ‘Inner’ believes that the EU march to federalism is a good thing, or they believe it is inevitable. They say we are too small to survive on our own, that thousands of jobs depend on being in Europe, that if we are not in we will have no influence over European policy. They believe the surrender of sovereignty to the EU is a good exchange for influence within the EU and anyway national identity is outdated.
An ‘Outer’ believes the opposite; they believe that we should pull out completely and just have a free trade arrangement with the EU. They argue that we will save money because we are a net contributor to the EU and they say that you can’t change the EU from within. They are fond of quoting a fact that 75% of our laws originate from Europe and that if we were not a member then a huge weight of bureaucracy be lifted. From this they conclude that we would be Better Off Out (BOO).
Temperamentally, I am more inclined to the ‘Outer’ line of thought and there is a great deal of truth in the arguments. However I do believe that the logical conclusion, that we would be ‘Better Off Out’ is not accurate, and that there is another path we could try and follow and that is why my answer always disappoints the person asking the question.
Let’s go through the arguments.
First influence: an ‘Inner’ argues we need to be in and abide by the rules of the EU (i.e. the Lisbon Treaty) if we are to have any influence. An ‘Outer’ says we have no influence, can be outvoted under the Lisbon Treaty, so we should pull out. I think we may wish to influence some policies, but retain our independence in others. If we pulled out we couldn’t do this, but if we go fully in we lose our independence on other areas. However, if it is an area were we did not want the EU to dictate to us, why would we want to dictate to them, so we should not want influence in all areas, just some.
How about the UK being too small to survive? This is patent nonsense, smaller countries seem to manage and I see no reason why the 5th biggest economy and 2nd or 3rd biggest trading economy should not be able to survive. As for jobs being dependent on Europe, the facts are that about 40% of our trade goes to Europe (as it has for the last 100 years plus) with the remainder going elsewhere in the world. The UK is a net importer from Europe, so I see no reason why the EU would wish to change the trading relationship with the UK if we took a more detached approach to the EU. Jobs in the UK are dependent on the UK workforce making a good product at the right price, not on some magical trading block.
There would undoubtedly be a saving from withdrawal, in terms of saving the budget contribution but this may be outweighed by the costs of withdrawal. As for the costs of trading with the EU, and meeting the standards of the Single Market, they would still remain because if we wished to trade in the EU we would still need to meet their standards. Most of the laws emanating form the EU relate to this so even though the EU laws (the famous 75%) would not be applicable in the UK we may find we still had to meet most of them to enable us to trade. What we would gain from withdrawal would be a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty, with power entrusted back in Parliament, we could choose not to trade in Europe, in some areas, and so we would not have to meet their standards for these areas..
I would say that if we pulled out, we would regain our political independence, we would be able to survive, our economy wouldn’t collapse and we would be able to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, albeit probably on slightly worse terms. We may save some money, although not as much as the Outers would have you believe, but any savings may be small.
However, all of this is just really skirmishing; the real argument is the future direction of the EU to a federal state. One of the main arguments put forward by both camps is that you can’t change the march towards a united Europe and that is why you need to be in or out. It is on this fact that I think both camps are completely wrong. Why can’t the UK negotiate a relationship with the EU where we are in but on terms that are acceptable to both the EU and to us?
Imagine, if we could agree a position where we were a member of the EU but instead of having ‘Opt Outs’ from treaties we actually ‘froze’, or slightly reversed, our current relationship, and from now on we would be out of future treaties, but with an option to opt in? We could then stay out of any moves to a federal state, whilst at the same time not preventing other countries who wished to go this way. We could opt in to some areas where we wanted to and the whole debate would be settled.
If we negotiated such a new relationship, then I think the argument that we would be Better Off Out does not hold. The reason I say this is because there would be very little practical difference between pulling out and a renegotiated position. After renegotiation, we would have restored our parliamentary sovereignty, removed the risk of future treaties taking us further down the federal route, got the free trade area we wanted and we would have still retained some influence in areas we wished to do so. We would actually be ‘better off in’, or at a minimum, there would be very little to choose between the two positions. That is why I think we should try and agree a new relationship with the EU.
But, the ’Inners’ and ‘Outers’ cry in unison, you can’t do this, they won’t let you...why?, has anyone ever tried to do this?
The evidence from the past:
The evidence is when pushed, when backed up by a democratic mandate from a particular country, the EU can be changed. If David Cameron goes to Europe, armed with a mandate from the British people for change, do you think the EU will not listen? We are not asking for the EU to change direction merely that Britain has a relationship that is in keeping with the hopes and desires of the British people
This is why I think the two camps are both wrong, we don’t know if we can or can’t change our relationship with Europe because we haven’t tried
So why don’t we try and see what happens, what is the worse thing that could happen?
Thursday, 18 June, 2009
David Cameron has caused a bit of a stir after doing a German voice when talking about ID cards. Some people in the media are calling this a ‘gaffe’ or even worse and wondering whether it could set back relations between a Cameron Government and Germany. Apparently someone complained about this lighthearted statement that is why it has made the news. All I can say is get a life, obviously the complainer has never laughed at an episode of ‘Allo Allo’, or laughed at the accents in the ‘Pink Panther’ movies, or laughed at Harry Enfield etc etc. On the day when a hundred Rumanian families have been hounded out of their homes by racist threats in Northern Ireland, perhaps the killjoys and sense of humour failures would like to stop their stupid complaining, turn their attentions to real events, and let the rest of us get on enjoying a joke when we can.
I hope I got through this article without mentioning the war....I think I did.
Monday, 08 June, 2009
According to Guido, Kevin Maguire (Political Editor of the Mirror) has been at it again displaying the nasty streak that runs through the self style class warriors. Maguire was asked by a participant at a breakfast seminar this morning if there was any possible way Gordon Brown could win the general election, his smirking reply was:
“The only way Gordon Brown can win the general election is if Madeleine McCann’s body is found in David Cameron’s garage.”
Sick, yes, but will the Mirror fire him for this, no. After all this is the newspaper who faked pictures of British soldiers apparently abusing prisoners in Iraq.
Oh and why I am on it, Margaret Hodge was useless on C4 news tonight when speaking against the newly elected BNP MEP, Andrew Brons. She made the stupid remark that the BNP would stop tourists and students coming to the UK. This was easily brushed aside by Brons who said it was rubbish. She also interrupted constantly which allowed Brons to play the ‘please let me speak' card.
Labour need to up their game in dealing with the BNP, or ‘Labour for Racists’ as Norman Tebbit called them. Making stupid comments like this will not help defeat them, it just makes Labour look silly. Margaret Hodge needs to realise this is real politics not student politics and stop giving the BNP such easy targets to knock down.
Saturday, 06 June, 2009
After the count on Friday we headed for a pizza and a well earned glass of wine. On the way back to the cars there was a TV crew outside the town hall and the interviewer asked me ‘what did I think about John Hutton resigning?’. I quickly responded and said I was very pleased, but then again I was the Conservative candidate for Barrow & Furness and we had just taken 5 seats (the 6th one was Ulverston East which was counted later in Kendal).
Monday, 01 June, 2009
The weekend was the last weekend campaigning before the elections on Thursday. I was out canvassing in Ormsgill, Parkside and Hawcoat and we generally it was positive. We were also joined on Saturday by Alex Williams who is our number 4 candidate on the European list. Two points stand out from the weekend:
I canvassed a gentleman from Africa who told me that he was very disappointed by the expense scandal. He told me that when he came to Britain he thought he had left corruption behind but now Britain was ‘not the political paradise I thought it was’. Nevertheless he still believed it was necessary to vote and we chatted for some time. I hope I persuaded him that the County Candidates were not responsible for the expenses scandal, and so they still deserved his vote, and also that the best way to change the system was by voting Conservative to put pressure on Gordon Brown to call a General Election.
The second event that happened was that one of our poster sites was defaced by an Independent ‘Kick them Out’ poster. Our election agent told me about this and that it had been reported to the owner of the poster site. The owner explained that this was a case of ‘fly postering’, i.e. using someone’s poster site without prior permission of the owner, and that he had reported it to the Police because it is a breach of the law. He had also told the Independents Agent of this and that they needed to remove the offending poster and that the Police would be investigating.
It may seem trivial to pick up on this but democracy exists because each party respects the right of the other to speak and display posters without them being defaced. Putting another poster over someone else’s poster, or banning someone from a public meeting because he has a different view, are examples of intolerance to different views and shows a disdain for the proper democratic process.
Before you cast your vote, remember this.
| |
Blog RSS feed
