Why we should leave Europe now

I have written this entry primarily for my American friends and maybe my Australian ones, too.  It sets out to explain that the seemingly reactionary view that we should leave the European Union now is actually progressive.  It takes the form of  three arguments - political, economic and the peace argument.

The Political Argument

You need to understand that the European Union is not a free trade area or an association.  It is a union.  It has an executive – the European Commission – and it has a legislature – the European Parliament.  It has a Court – the European Court of Justice – and it has a Civil Service.

These institutions are supranational and rank above their equivalents in individual countries.  The decisions of the ECJ are binding on the British Supreme Court and EU “Directives” are binding on the British Parliament.

The problem for Britain is that we don’t fit in this structure.  For a thousand years we have offered an alternative vision of society to that holding sway in Europe.  We have been democratic while they have been autocratic; we have been individualistic while they have been corporatist; we have prized liberty above equality whereas they have tended to the reverse; we have been protestant while they have been largely Catholic; their legal systems have tended to be inquisitorial and based on directives from the centre whereas ours has been based on precedent and adversarial debate; we have followed the Rule of Law in which an independent judiciary has been able to protect the citizen against arbitrary authority whereas they have had absolute authorities.

Recently, in historic terms, Europe has become democratic too, but there remains a fundamental gulf between our view of Democracy and theirs.  In Europe, The State tends to be supreme and the purpose of Democracy is to determine who will wield that supreme power.  In Britain we tend to regard the State as a necessary but not particularly desirable entity that is to be subservient to The People unless absolutely necessary.  Daniel Hannan gives a good illustration of this in his book on Freedom.  He was attending a debate in the European Parliament on a Directive to regulate Herbal Medicine.  He put down a question: why do we need a Directive on Herbal Medicine?  His colleagues looked at him as though he were mad: “because there isn’t one”, they said.  In Britain our response would be, “Great!  We don’t need one, then”.  But not in Europe.

Even the word “Directive” is anathema to me and to many Britons.  You don’t “Direct” an English man or woman to do something.  That’s been tried and it doesn’t work.  You win them over by argument and persuasion.  The British people give their consent to laws; they don’t accept direction.

So how did we let things get this far?  The answer is that we, the British, did not understand these differences when we voted to join the Common Market in 1974.  We thought we were joining a free trade area.  I thought we were joining a free trade area.  We knew about the commitment by the European Founding Fathers to “Ever Closer Union” and we didn’t believe it. But since then, a series of treaties have surreptitiously moved power from the People’s Representatives to the European Centre.

Around the turn of the Millennium the Europeans made a choice that was a step too far for us.  They implemented a currency union – the Euro.  Thankfully, we saw the danger and said no to this.  And this decision almost certainly saved us from the chaos that the Euro Zone has experienced since.  But what the decision did do was highlight to me and people much more powerful than me the democratic deficit in Europe.  The Euro has no democratic oversight.  It is a currency without a master.  It is managed by an unelected group of bankers in Frankfurt who make their decisions without having to answer to the Peoples of the countries whose economies are affected.

But it is worse than just the Central Bank.  Europe cannot be democratic for this reason: People don’t vote for subtitles! Citizens will not vote for politicians whose language they do not speak.  You have to look into the eyes of your politicians and you have to weigh their every word and nuance to make a judgement.  You can never make a judgement based on an interpreter’s summary of what they have just said.

And learning other languages, whilst better than nothing, is no solution.  Only a mother-tongue speaker can make an informed judgement as to the suitability of a politician for office.

So democracy is not possible in Europe.  Each country may elect its own representatives, who may negotiate with their peers from other countries, as happens in the European Parliament, but a true democracy in which the leaders of Europe are elected by the People of Europe will never be possible while we all speak different languages.  And we will always speak different languages.

These arguments, and others, have not been overlooked in Europe either.  An increasing number of European citizens are coming to realise that this is just a bad idea.  It is not going to work.  We will come out eventually when the whole thing falls apart.  So let’s shorten the process by coming out now.

The Economic Argument

The argument is often put that jobs and investment depend on our membership of the EU.  Well I grew up in a Britain that was not part of the EU and what I remember about that Britain is that prices were significantly lower than in mainland Europe, that our standard of living was higher than all but Germany and that we had full employment and considerable prosperity.

Being in Europe has restricted our freedom of action considerably.  We are not able to do trade deals with the USA, China, Australia or any other country.  We have to accept whatever trade deals the European Centre does on our behalf.  Some call this “Clout” but it is not that.  It is subjecting ourselves to a slow-moving, bureaucratic process that aims to compromise our interests with those of the other Member States.  The European Union was set up to solve a problem that no longer exists.  The World Trade Organisation is progressively bringing down the tariffs and barriers that restrict world trade and the internet now means that it is as easy for me to deal with a customer in Australia as one in France – easier because of the language.  The European Founders feared that the US and the Soviet Union would dominate world trade and that we needed to club together to counterbalance that dominance.  So what about Singapore?  Hong Kong? Switzerland and Norway?  Do these countries look as though they are suffering from lack of clout due to being small?  On the contrary, their freedom to be fast-moving and nimble gives them an advantage. 

A specific example is useful here.  Genetically Modified Organisms.  British science is world class in many areas but we cannot produce and sell GMOs despite their manifest advantages because we cannot reach agreement with the other twenty eight member states on what we can and cannot do.  So while America and Asia race ahead in this crucial area, we are forced to sit and watch.

Would Europe raise trade barriers against us if we left?  Well, let’s not forget that they are the smaller part of our export market.  We sell more to non-European countries than to Member States.  So we would not be left with no markets.  But we also buy more from mainland Europe than we sell to it.  In the case of Germany, we are the largest market in the world for German products.  Will they stop selling to us in a fit of pique?  Hardly?  Will they slap barriers on our goods?  Well only if they want retaliation.

There would, of course, be some dislocation and there might even be some temporary disinvestment.  But our job would be to show that we can be the best place to invest based on the quality of our workers and infrastructure, not on membership of a dying club.  If people can make money here, they will invest here.  It is as simple as that.

The Peace Argument

Of all the arguments, this has always seemed the strangest to me.  The argument goes that Europe has had seventy years of peace as a result of the EU.  Really?  Would we all start fighting if the club were disbanded tomorrow?  Looking at the ill-will generated in countries such as Greece and Cyprus by the European Central authorities, it is arguable that conflict is more likely within the EU.

The reason we have had peace is simple.  Britain, France and, above all, the USA have had nuclear weapons that could annihilate the Soviet Union if it chose to attack.  So it didn’t choose to attack.  And obviously the non-nuclear powers in Europe are hardly going to attack the nuclear ones.  I cannot see that the EU has had any influence at all on peace in Europe.  We have just moved beyond the stage at which we try to kill each other the whole time.

So does this mean I support UKIP?

No.  There is much in UKIP that I support tactically but I do not support the party.  For one thing, they are against Gay Marriage.  They claim to be in favour of Liberty and then they say that.  I don’t expect a political party to tell me who I can marry and I don’t plan to tell other people who they can marry.  This is not an issue for politics at all.

They are also opposed to European immigration.  Perversely, this is one of the few things about the EU that I actually like!  Free movement of capital, goods and people is what I voted for in ‘74. UKIP says that it would replace open-door immigration with a system of work permits.  The trouble is with this that you cannot tell what people will achieve based on their qualifications and skills.  It might help with a shortage of doctors but what about entrepreneurs?  Some of the best have arrived in just the clothes they wear and have built wonderful companies that have benefited the country hugely.   Would we have Easy Jet if we had insisted on Stelios’ family having a certain tally of points?

I love the dynamism that immigration creates – the smiling Czech who serves my coffee with such energy, the Indian business magnate, the French Chef – and many non-stereotypical examples, too!

UKIP will kill this stone dead if we are not careful.

So what’s the Answer?

We need to work through the main political parties to persuade them to use their remaining powers to get us out.  There are enough people of goodwill on all sides that we can do this.  We just need to focus on it and let our politicians know.