Friday, August 08, 2008

Guest Blog: We Can Prosper Without the EU

Zach Johnstone

At just 18 years of age, I would be understating if I were to claim that my political consciousness is anything other than budding. I know there is much to learn, a great deal of which will only come through experience. But there are certain things which strike a chord even with one whose political philosophy is still forming; certain issues that evoke a fervent interest for no other reason than the fact that they seem to be completely commonsensical. In my short political life, many issues have taken a similarly central mantle, however there is a principal example which offsets all others; an issue that has been – and continues to be – responsible for many hours of debate and discussion amongst my peers, my family and anyone else who is willing to give me chance to make audible my standpoint. This issue is that of British membership of the European Union.

Now, I am well aware that such a stance is far from unique. But my qualm is not with a Europe based upon economic interdependence; I am the first to stand up and say that secure, economic cooperation is of great importance in an increasingly globalised sphere where smaller countries may well experience difficulty in negotiating trade agreements with bigger powers. But at what point did this mutually beneficial trading bloc transmogrify into the overbearing, political pseudo state of which we are all now citizens?

The answer is blurry; the EU’s approach has been an insidious slide towards a federal Europe, making use of the neofunctional model of integration to soften the blow of a diminished role for the nation state. What was once a trading bloc designed to eliminate the prospect of future European wars has become a socialist project to unite Europe politically, legally and economically. Since 1975, the British people have been granted no say as to whether or not they are in favour of such a shift. This is something I find particularly curious; why is it that continued membership of an economic entity was felt to be important enough to warrant a referendum, but every stage of political union has been felt too inconsequential? The question of governments leading the UK blindly against its will spans across the political spectrum, from Maastricht through to Lisbon.

But what I am keen to highlight in this post is perhaps the most ridiculous assertion of all: that the EU is an inevitable path, without which the UK would suffer heavily. This is something I’ve always failed to get to grips with; all things superfluous to economic union aside (i.e. everything post-Maastricht), I feel are mutually beneficial, and actually serve a valuable purpose. Now, given a return to the pre-Maastricht arrangement is an impossibility, what of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)?

EFTA has, for many years, made it possible for countries such as Norway, Iceland and Switzerland to operate hugely effectively without the imposition of European judicial supremacy. Indeed, these countries are obliged to adopt EU directives with little say in the content, but as Daniel Hannan MEP pointed out a few years ago, the measures are nearly always of a very trivial nature. Fundamentally, they do not concern issues of epic proportion such as legal supremacy, agriculture and fisheries. Hannan goes on to point out that such measures have only numbered 3,000 since 1992, compared to a staggering 18,000 that the UK has adopted in the same time frame.

It is also interesting to observe the seeming ease with which an EFTA state may trade with the EU, in spite of the EU's deliberately insular economic area. Over 60% of Switzerland's exports are EU-bound, compared to around 40% of the UK's (from within the EU!). Admittedly, whilst Swiss goods can enter the EU freely, citizens do not enjoy the same liberty. But who is to say that EFTA cannot be expanded and improved? It could, as far as I can see, be moulded into a group of sovereign nation states whose only common link is of an economic nature.

In the face of this contradictory evidence, we are still told that independence from the hold of the EU comes at the cost of stability and economic security. Those who argue the EU would not grant us favourable trading terms upon secession forget two important points: firstly, the World Trade Organisation would not permit any sort of protectionist embargo against the UK anyway. Secondly, even if they were to do so then it would be a classic case of cutting off their nose to spite their face. Besides this, we would be negotiating trade terms with the EU as a nation leaving the EU for EFTA, not just as a member of EFTA. This means that - at the start of negotiations - we would be fully under the direction of acquis communautaire; we would not be opting in rule-by-rule, but opting out of unfavourable legislation and restoring national control over areas that the EU has no real mandate to dictate over anyway.

It is, however, for you to make up your own mind on the necessity of political union and the prospective fortunes of a UK that is “with” the EU but “not of it”, however I ask you to do so with both sides of the argument in mind.


*************
If you would like to write a guest blog, email me 750 words. No guarantees I will use it, but I will do my best!

22 comments:

The Secret Person said...

I couldn't agree more, a purely economic EFTA for those who want that relationship could easily co-exist with an EU which wants political integration and eventual statehood.

This would not be a "two speed Europe" as it is sometimes called, as that assumes all parts moving towards an eventual goal. The EU may see itself as on the inevitable road to becoming the US of E, but EFTA members may be quite happy with the status quo.

As for implementing EU regulations without a say, well that is no different to if we wanted to trade with the US. And a stronger EFTA, including the UK (currently the EU's second biggest economy) would have a stronger negotiating position. It is not impossible that some of the other Scandinavians would want to join us.

There is plenty of scope for a future trading with the EU (and the rest of the world free of EU protectionism) without the march towards a single superstate.

Jon Worth said...

Forgetting the fact that all the rules for products exported from Switzerland to the EU have to respect EU rules for their manufacture, safety etc., and Switzerland has no seat at the table to negotiate those rules.

But then again I suppose details like that count for nothing if you start with the idea that the EU is necessarily evil.

Anonymous said...

Well, it's all been said before, even by the truly awful Tony Blair....“Of course, Britain could survive outside the EU... We could probably get access to the single market as Norway and Switzerland do...” The Rt Hon Tony Blair MP, 23rd February 2000

And then read the Hannan article on the brilliant brugesgroup website..."You would have thought that the case for the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) didn’t need making. After all, the four EFTA members, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, are measurably better off than the 25 EU members. Just look at the statistics.

State GDP PER CAPITA (USD)
Norway 48,400
Switzerland 43,900
Iceland 36,300
Liechtenstein 30,000
EU 15 (pre-enlargement) 27,500
EU 25 21,800

Source: OECD

People in EFTA are more than twice as rich as those in the EU. They also enjoy lower inflation, higher employment, healthier budget surpluses and lower real interest rates. Interestingly, they also export more per head than EU states, selling $16,498 per capita to overseas markets – the highest ratio in the world..."..and so on.

And the killer, as far as I am concerned.."Oh yes, and they’re all sovereign democracies."

neil craig said...

When Gunter Verheuggen the EU "Enterprise" Commissioner said, last year, that EU regulations cost the continent £405 billion (about £67 billion proportionately in the UK) I think any case for staying melted away.

Newmania said...

Yes good stuff

Bill Quango MP said...

Wheres DES?
I'll fill in and Devils advocate for him..

Without the Eu war would break out along the lines of 1914..
Hitler was against the Eu..

erm... thats it.

Yak40 said...

That, of course, is the way the system works. It relies on ambiguities and deniability, working up structures and systems which can be presented as harmless and innocent, but with a dual-purpose agenda that is never declared until it is too late to oppose it.

Criticism of the EU ist verboten, or soon will be, wasn't a Belgian journalist muzzled over their accounting scandal ?

The EU is dragging the UK down.

Anonymous said...

The federalists have been in the EU project from the start. They are playing a long term strategy. They select those issues that they can exploit for their goal of ever-closer union and then get them through the European Council (once that is done, the rest follows).

They rely upon national leaders being distracted by domestic matters so as not to see the bigger picture.

The EU cannot be easily altered, as Thatcher deluded herself into believing. However the EU needs an export market for all its (French) food surpluses, so the UK's departure would hurt them more than us. Perhaps we should signal our departure and then see what new arrangement can be achieved.

Vindico said...

Well said young sir. Now try and work out why our politicians fail to reach the same conlusions?!

Anonymous said...

BQ MP @14:42
sorry to be the bearer of evil news, according to DES* he is boycotting this blog so as not to contaminate himself with Tory thoughts.

The loneliness of exile is rumoured to have left him rocking back and forth at his keyboard like a deranged bear.

*Recipient of the following Witangemot Prizes:

"Blogger that you never agree with"

"Shouldn't be allowed to own a computer, let alone have a blog"

(Verification=sicpwpp, by coincidence how DES spells 'EFTA')

The Secret Person said...

Jon Worth - as Switzerland has to obey rules to export to the USA with no say in them. Presumably also EU countries must make allowances for Swiss rules to export to Switzerland with no say in them.

An EFTA of Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland is outgunned by the EU. If (for example) the UK, Sweden, Denmark and Poland joined EFTA, there'd be less 'EU dictation' and more two sided negotiation.

"But then again I suppose details like that count for nothing if you start with the idea that the EU is necessarily evil."

I don't know about 'necessarily evil', but certainly unnecessary!

Paul Donnelley said...

Jon Worth says that "all the rules for products exported from Switzerland to the EU have to respect EU rules for their manufacture, safety etc., and Switzerland has no seat at the table to negotiate those rules". True but not all our exports go or would got to EU countries so those exported to other countries would not be hidebound by the same daft rules the EU imposes.

And just think we could make our own laws again - we could get rid of the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act, oh joy...

Andy said...

That is radical stuff! It isn't really the same old stuff that has been pumped out by CWF, Dan Hannan, and just about every Tory thinktank for the last decade. Oh hang on..

Anonymous said...

excellent well written piece.couldn't agree more.

Lola said...

Son, if you're the future we're not as doomed as I thought we were. Can I offer you a daughter?

bryboy said...

A well reasoned, well thought out expose of our problems within the EU. Why will our politicians not debate this crucial issue in public? I am convinced that this is one of the reasons that Gordon Brown's persona has gone downhill so quickly. The British inheritently will not welcome a federalist European state. Most of us do not vote for our MPs only to find that we are being ruled by Brussels. To see a British PM sneak off to Spain to to sign away our independence was one step too far but he didn't get it and never will. This was a very good contribution to the blogosphere.

Anonymous said...

Dear Zach,
Join UKIP.

Gareth said...

Jon Worth: "Forgetting the fact that all the rules for products exported from Switzerland to the EU have to respect EU rules for their manufacture, safety etc., and Switzerland has no seat at the table to negotiate those rules."

I export products to the US and I have to ensure that they meet FDA guidelines. Should the UK join America so that we can have a say in these guidelines.

I suppose you will sat not, since you start from the position that the US is evil.

Ilja Nieuwland said...

@ anonymous, 1:30 pm

"And the killer, as far as I am concerned.."Oh yes, and they’re all sovereign democracies."

Liechtenstein an 'sovereign democracy'? It has a sovereign, but there's little democracy left, I can tell you.

Anyway, what you forget is that these countries used to have a higher GDP before there was even talk of EFTA or EU, with the exception of Norway.

The EU has brought greater wealth to many of its members (compare Portugal pre- and post-EU, for instance), but at a price. Wealth has leveled out among its member states, which has been bad news for the richer ones. However, the investment was just about barable, until the poorer ex-Eastern Bloc countries came along. I'm not quite convinced the same scheme can help Romania or Bulgaria, to be honest.

Anonymous said...

No federal structure that has its component parts coming from different cultures & languages has survived in the long-term.

C.F. present day Belgium.

Anonymous said...

Dave H. said...

"according to DES* he is boycotting this blog so as not to contaminate himself with Tory thoughts."

Yes. He started his boycott soon after Iain banned him.

I was beginning to miss his inanities. Fortunately Bill Quango MP has made a good start in filling in for him.


Toque said...

"Should the UK join America so that we can have a say in these guidelines."

I wish we could. I really really wish we could.

Anonymous said...

This young man was obviously taught by an excellent teacher or attended an excellent school. Thank God there's hope for the future.