Do We Need to be Part of the EU ?
May 31st, 2009 | 
Author: 
I have often remarked before that on of the biggest problems with discussing the EU is that both the language and basic assumptions are totally wrong: Anti-EU = Little Englander. Pro-EU = Federalist. Now whilst at the extremes on both sides such projections would be true, it certainly isn’t for the majority of either persuasion.
Unfortunately (or Not), for both the EU and Gordon Brown, in the UK at least, the failure to hold a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the identical twin of the EU Constitution, will prove lethal in the end because inevitably it will have to be done. In fact the later it is left, the more certain it is that the UK will leave the EU because there really does need to be a proper public debate and a decision via a Referendum.
There is a Democratic Deficit
Many people who are anti-EU talk about its democratic deficit and yes it certainly has one but we must be realistic, with 27 nations, this will never ever be a democracy, in order to function at all, this latter day Hapsburg Empire must be controlled centrally with deals done behind closed doors and away from sight of the electorate. In a sense within the UK, this is the major argument against proportional representation and coalition Governments because it leads to “horse trading” rather than efficient governance.
As an example, if there were to be a hung Parliament with the LibDems holding the balance of power, their “price” to support either of the other two would be a change in the voting system to PR and regardless of whether this was good for the Country or not. The only reason they want PR is that Labour stole their “radical crown” 100 years ago and successive generations of Liberals have lacked the ability to project a “view” to the British electorate that would get it back. Rather than do their job properly, they want a ‘cheat’.
EU Fishery Policy
A fine example of this with fish stocks collapsing in the waters around the EU, is the EU Fishery Policy which they publicly declared a total failure a couple of weeks ago. The problem is that if you take a country like Spain where fishing is very important, they will “trade” their support for France over the CAP if France supports them over their fishery claims and so on. It does not produce logical or “best case/practice” policies because it is based upon a political fudge not the “science” and this total incompetence embraces most EU policies.
Whether with regard to a natural resource such as fish or common threats and management problems such as environmental pollution, energy supplies, fresh water and so on, with an increasingly aware and concerned electorate right across the EU, the current model of “dirty deals behind closed doors” is not really sustainable and at both the national and centralized Brussels level, a more realistic and honest way of dealing with things needs to emerge
Do we need to be part of the EU at all ?
By this I do not mean a relationship similar to Norway and Switzerland – trade only which still requires them to pay some level of Dane geld to Brussels, abide by their rules and legislation whilst having no say as to what those rules are. Clearly this is not the best arrangement except, if you trade with the US, Japan, China, India and so on, you face the same problems except you don’t pay the Dane geld. So I do mean Britain being a stand alone entity once again a Sovereign Nation that negotiates on matters of common interest with the EU.
One of the main “arguments” put forward by the pro-EU people, they seem to have remarkably few to offer, is that “3 million UK jobs depend on us being part of the EU”. The answer to that given our trade deficit, is that at least 6 million EU jobs must depend upon us remaining in the EU. Apparently the UK is the most important wine market in the World and because of the fall in the value of Sterling, French producers are so distraught they are even selling at a loss to keep within the UK market because they cannot compete with “New World Wines” on price.
If we left the EU completely, can one see VW, Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Fiat, Citroen etc saying “We shall not sell you any more cars as a punishment !” I hardly think so. Our negotiating position is a lot stronger than our weak kneed politicians seem to imagine.
Is Big the Thing now ?
The cry that “We must be part of something Big…” must surely be discredited by now, in whose interest is it today to be part of something big ? Big Business, Big Government ? Hardly likely to be us ordinary citizens is it ?
It didn’t seem too good an idea with the banks we now own all of whom got far too big for their asset bases. Not such a great idea with GM Europe either it appears. Forget our short lived “Days of Empire”, for the majority of our history we have been a global trading nation with military capability to deploy as required in our national interests, that really is our natural mode.
We need to get back to basics, wealth creation and generation has to take place within these 7,000 miles of British shorelines, there is no magic fairy in Brussels that will bail us out. Gordon Brown as the foolish Chancellor that he was, declared that he had ended Boom and Bust in the British economy and of course he was wrong because he forgot the basics of economics, if he ever knew them.
All people should remember the basics of our British history, we are valued by others for two main things, a trading opportunity and a military capability and we don’t need to be part of the EU for that to apply. Some people also value these small islands for our cultural contribution but they tend not to be politicians.
Posted in Politics, The Media | 
Tags: British Interests, Political Parties, The European Union, Within the UK
1) You are forgetting the initiatives to bring all the EU under one legal code eg the horrors of the European Arrest Warrant.
Common Law, as used in Britain, is fundamentally different from the Civil or Roman law used almost throughout the EU. Common law gives us a sense of individual freedoms and constrains the executive whilst Civil law is the tool of the executive that can be used to control the population. Few seem to understand how the Common law has given individuals a very different character to citizens of other EU States.
As Sir Winston said: “A man can only be accused of a civil or criminal offense which is clearly defined and known to the law. The judge is an umpire. He adjudicates on such evidence as the parties choose to produce. Witnesses must testify in public and on oath. They are examined and cross-examined, not by the judge, but by the litigants themselves or their legally qualified and privately hired representatives. The truth of their testimony is weighed not by the judge by [sic] by twelve good men and true, and it is only when this jury has determined the facts that the judge is empowered to impose sentence, punishment, or penalty according to law. All might seem very obvious, even a platitude, until one contemplates the alternative system which still dominates a large portion of the world. Under Roman law, and systems derived from it, a trial in those turbulent centuries, and in some countries even today, is often an inquisition. The judge makes his own investigation into the civil wrong or the public crime, and such investigation is largely uncontrolled. The suspect can be interrogated in private. He must answer all questions put to him. His right to be represented by a legal adviser is restricted. The witness against him can testify in secret and in his absence. And only when these processes have been accomplished is the accusation or charge against him formulated and published. Thus often arises secret intimidation, enforced confessions, torture, and blackmailed pleas of guilty. These sinister dangers were extinguished from the Common Law of England more than six centuries ago.” (The Birth of Britain, vol 1, Winston S. Churchill, Dodd, Mead & Co, New York 1956, page 222)
2) I have tried and failed, to find evidence for this 3m or 3.5 million claim. I did find 20 people in the Ministry of Justice who are there purely to transpose EU Directives etc into UK legal code. There must be plenty more like that, paid for by the taxpayer, that we could do without, but 3 million?