Britain's future: Goodbye Europe

[Chippiewill]

A British exit from the European Union looks increasingly possible. It would be a reckless gamble

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20121208_LDP001_0.jpg

I was reading The Economist at school earlier today and found an article that caught my attention, I thought it'd be interesting to have an article on here that doesn't sing tales of a Europe free Britain as wholly positive for once. It's a very good read so I do urge you to read the whole thing, I'm sure a certain someone will.


BRITAIN does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community,” asserted Margaret Thatcher in 1988. Now, increasingly, it does. Opinion polls show that most Britons are in favour of leaving the European Union. Baroness Thatcher’s Conservative Party, which took Britain into Europe four decades ago, is divided between those who long for an arm’s-length relationship and those who want to walk out. The second camp is swelling.

Even the fiercest British critics of the EU are astonished by the speed at which things are moving. Parliamentary rebellions over Europe are becoming easier and easier to organise. Euroscepticism is hardening in the Conservative Party, in much the same way as social conservatism has gone from being a powerful current in America’s Republican Party to an intolerant orthodoxy. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which wants to leave the EU, has abruptly moved from the political margins to the mainstream. A referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU now seems a matter of timing.

Continental Europeans are surprised too—and annoyed. They are bewildered that the British should be talking of leaving a club that many believe has shifted decisively in a free-trading, Anglo-Saxon direction in the past two decades. They also resent the way Britain seems to be using the threat of an exit as a bargaining tool, especially at a time when the euro is in crisis. As they see it, Britain wants to carve out a privileged place for itself in the European club, where it can enjoy free trade without any of the other membership rules. In Berlin and Rome, political leaders argue that Britain needs to make up its mind once and for all: does it want to be in or out?

Oops!

For an economically liberal newspaper that has been sceptical of much that Brussels does, a British exit would be a double tragedy. Britons would suffer far more than they currently realise, as we explain in detail in our briefing this week (see article). Europe would be damaged too. Britain has stood for free trade and low regulation, so without it the union would be more lethargic and left ever further behind by America and the emerging world.

The speediest way for Britain to tumble out would be an “In or Out” referendum called by a prime minister frightened by rising anti-Europe feeling in Parliament and the country as a whole. David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, has tried to resist this, hinting instead that Britons would be given a choice between the status quo and a more detached relationship. But few are satisfied with that. Conservative MPs look over their right shoulders at UKIP and clamour for a sharper choice.

Another route out involves a diplomatic slip. The cleverer Eurosceptics, including Mr Cameron, do not want Britain to leave; they just want to bring back some powers from Brussels. But their efforts to do so are making things worse. Last year almost all other EU members lined up against Mr Cameron, who was trying to block a fiscal compact to help resolve the euro crisis. The British now hope that tightening euro-zone integration provides a chance for Mr Cameron to negotiate looser ties. They could be wrong. Other countries are tiring of British demands. Many, including Germany, would prefer to avoid a British exit, but they are not so desperate to keep Mr Cameron in that they are prepared to concede much in the way of social and labour-market regulation. And some, such as France, might positively welcome the departure of the club’s most awkward member. Bad-tempered negotiations would increase the likelihood of an “out” vote in a British referendum.

Little sovereignty, large cost

And what if Britain left? It could grab a few benefits quickly. The nation would save about £8 billion ($13 billion) a year in net budget contributions. Freed of the common agricultural policy, its food could become cheaper. If it pulled out of the single market, it could do away with annoying labour directives. The City would not have to worry so much about a financial-transaction tax and creeping European finance rules.

Yet these gains would be greatly outweighed by the costs of a British exit, which would dent trade with a market that accounts for half of Britain’s exports. The carmakers that use Britain as their European operations base would gradually drift away, along with large parts of the financial-services industry. Britain would have to renegotiate dozens of bilateral trade deals from a much weaker position than it enjoyed as a member of the EU. It would cut a greatly diminished figure on the world stage. It would have bought some sovereignty, but at an extraordinary cost to Britain—and its partners.

Among those who want out, there is talk of finding an accommodation by which Britain would leave the EU but still trade freely with it (the equivalent of eating in a restaurant but not paying the cover charge). Some Eurosceptics suggest Britain could join Norway in the European Economic Area. That would leave it bound by EU regulations that it would be almost powerless to shape—a situation many Britons, especially Eurosceptics, would find intolerable. Others hope Britain might get the same deal as Switzerland, which is a little further removed but gets good access to the single market. It wouldn’t: the EU already regrets giving Switzerland the Swiss option, so it is scarcely likely to give bigger, more troublesome Britain the same deal. Again, disappointment and a referendum beckon.

Can anything be done to prevent this slow-motion disaster? Quite possibly, it can. Oddly, Mr Cameron should try emulating Baroness Thatcher. She is remembered today as a handbag-swinger who commanded Brussels to retreat, but she also knew how to make common cause with other European leaders. Unfortunately, the quality of British EU diplomacy has deteriorated in recent years. Obsessed with repatriating powers and with appearing tough to their domestic audience, Britain’s current leaders seem to have forgotten the art of dealmaking. Mr Cameron has a good case to make, especially when he argues for extending the single market to promote growth. He also has powerful sympathisers in Europe, including Germany’s Angela Merkel, but they seldom become useful allies because Britain is seen as a blackmailing zealot.

The other priority should be educating Britons about what exactly a British exit would really involve. Big business and the City, whose interests lie solidly inside the EU, need to take a stand. The Labour Party, which has been playing a cynical and dangerous game, also needs to change its line. In October Labour MPs voted with anti-European Tories over the EU budget, handing the government its first major defeat. By strengthening those who want to leave Europe, Labour is making it more likely that a Conservative government will have to promise an in-or-out referendum. If it does, Labour may be bounced into promising the same.

Most of the heavy lifting, at home as well as in Brussels, will have to be done by Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne. They need to remind Britons of the victories that have been won within the EU and of the dangers of falling out of it. And above all, they need to rediscover the virtues of muddling along and keeping options open. The referendum is a good example. Rushing to hold a simple in-or-out vote sounds clear and decisive. But stalling for time is wiser. The government should resist demands for a vote at least until it becomes clear what sort of Europe Britain would be voting to remain in or leave. This sort of wait-and-see approach may feel unsatisfactory, but it is what kept Britain out of the euro.

Britain’s position in Europe may become untenable, if the resolution of the economic crisis binds the countries of the euro zone ever closer and all other EU countries join. But that is not a certainty, and nor is Britain’s steady marginalisation. Difficult and often humiliating as it may be, the best course is to stick close to Europe, and try to bend it towards Britain.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless

[God]

Ow my lord. Britain really need to relook over the pro's and con's.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Continental Europeans are surprised too—and annoyed.

The political classes across Europe certainly are angry that still, after 60 years of 'the project' public opinion continues to stand in the way. Indeed, it's not just the British public opinion - it's those continental Europeans too. It is important to make the distinction between the peoples of Europe and their political elites as public opinion across Europe is more or less the same as in the United Kingdom; no more or even less powers for Brussels. The examples of this are best seen in the EU Constitution that was proposed in the mid-2000s - something that was rejected by the French voters despite France being the main driving force behind the European Union but also the Dutch and the Irish.

So there we have it, out of the three European countries given a vote (two of which are continental) more European integration was rejected by the voters. And it's happened time and time again, with the Norweigens and Swiss rejecting EU membership despite being much more culturally similar (although still miles apart) to their European neighbours.


They are bewildered that the British should be talking of leaving a club that many believe has shifted decisively in a free-trading, Anglo-Saxon direction in the past two decades. They also resent the way Britain seems to be using the threat of an exit as a bargaining tool, especially at a time when the euro is in crisis.

This is simply not true, and as examined in the fantastic book written by Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North (nothing else compares on this subject) the British have failed and failed over again to keep the EU simply as a single, free trading market. And why is this? because anybody who has a depth on knowledge on the subject will know that the European project was never about trade, even back in the 1950s. It was always intended to be a process by which economic integration would come first, followed by political integration of which the end would see the birth of a country called 'Europe' - an country entirely made up and fictional, yet thats what it is all about as i'll prove in this response later on.


In Berlin and Rome, political leaders argue that Britain needs to make up its mind once and for all: does it want to be in or out?

Indeed, and the answer is out - unless the British people can be persuaded to drop the notion of British culture and adopt the EU flag as their own, as well as calling themselves 'European' as a national identity. Of course, it's not going to happen and nor will it happen on the continent either. Europe has always been a divided continent thats so immensely different all over, and attempts to impose a sort of United States of Europe on the European peoples will be a disaster as historical examples have proven over and over again; Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia being the two main European examples and so on.


For an economically liberal newspaper that has been sceptical of much that Brussels does, a British exit would be a double tragedy. Britons would suffer far more than they currently realise, as we explain in detail in our briefing this week (see article). Europe would be damaged too. Britain has stood for free trade and low regulation, so without it the union would be more lethargic and left ever further behind by America and the emerging world.

Completely made up, there have been virtually no British successes in reforming the European Union - firstly because of what I mentioned above, that the entire point of the project isn't for it to be a simple free trading area; it's inteneded to form into a single state at the end. That process means that more and more power is to be constantly ceaded to a European level at which it cannot be returned to the former nation states.

Secondly and the best example of British efforts at 'reform' I would point to the CAP. The British have constantly banged on about the CAP being the disaster that it is, and where's the reform? there is none. Reform of the CAP has been talked of since we joined in the 1970s all the way to 2012 - and it's the same with the CFP. I think Peter Hitchens put it corretly when he stated that British efforts are futile because the purpose of the European Union in relation to British membership has been to 'take us for a ride' - and that is what it does. If one looks at the European Union one can see that it is the opposite of free trade and low regulation - hence why their main efforts over the past two years have been to impose a Financial Transactions Tax on all European states, a tax which would serve to hurt the City of London.

So again, no successes of note at all.


The speediest way for Britain to tumble out would be an “In or Out” referendum called by a prime minister frightened by rising anti-Europe feeling in Parliament and the country as a whole. David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, has tried to resist this, hinting instead that Britons would be given a choice between the status quo and a more detached relationship.

Now this really grinds my gears, and it's what we hear time and time again from the Conservative Party on this topic. Continually, the likes of the Tories, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and thinktanks such as Open Europe argue for a 'detatched relationship' with Brussels. There-is-no-such-thing and a simple historical analysis of the project (again, the best of which was written by Booker and North in 'The Great Deception') shows that the ceading of powers to a European level is constant and intended to be irreversible. It's known as the acquis communautaire.


Yet these gains would be greatly outweighed by the costs of a British exit, which would dent trade with a market that accounts for half of Britain’s exports.

Sorry, but who of those who argue for us to leave the European Union are advocating limiting or denting trade with Europe? nobody is, so unless the author of this article would like to explain the mechanism by which trade would somehow be 'dented' by us leaving this political project then this is a completely made up point intended to scare people that somehow we are turning our backs on the European markets - we are advocating and would not do any such thing. A moot point, but one which I hear time and time again.


The carmakers that use Britain as their European operations base would gradually drift away, along with large parts of the financial-services industry.

No explanation here as to why car makers would leave the worlds sixth biggest economy and a country with a highly trained workforce.


Britain would have to renegotiate dozens of bilateral trade deals from a much weaker position than it enjoyed as a member of the EU.

Wrong, Britain would regain her position on the WTO (of which we currently don't have) and instead of being represented by a group which has to juggle the interests of 27 different countries we'd be able to negotiate our own deals with the world. The world's sixth largest economy would have a very big say, and by 2050 we'd still have a big say if projections on economic size are correct - we'll still be in the top 20 world economies by


It would cut a greatly diminished figure on the world stage. It would have bought some sovereignty, but at an extraordinary cost to Britain—and its partners.

Hyperbole and no explanation or basis for this rationalé. A country that is a member of the UN Security Council 5, a country which is a high ranking member of NATO, a country with foreign military bases in the Pacific, Atlantic and southern Europe, a country (one of only three) which has a blue water navy, a country which is the sixth largest economy in the world, a country which has the best ranked universities next to the United States, a country which has very good external relations with the Commonwealth and so on.

And yet we're supposed to believe we are a insignifigant island without Van Rompuy and Barroso?


Among those who want out, there is talk of finding an accommodation by which Britain would leave the EU but still trade freely with it (the equivalent of eating in a restaurant but not paying the cover charge).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

Bear in mind also that we'd have much better terms than most of these countries as we are Europes biggest trading partner - Europe needs Britain much more than we need Europe as they sell more to us than we buy from them, and the figure of which we sell to them is falling as a %.

So if the likes of Albania and Macedonia can 'eat in the restaurant and not pay the charge' - then why can't we?


Some Eurosceptics suggest Britain could join Norway in the European Economic Area. That would leave it bound by EU regulations that it would be almost powerless to shape—a situation many Britons, especially Eurosceptics, would find intolerable.

A myth actually, of the legislation that Norway enacts it enacts via 'working groups' with the EU which means that it can negotiate with the European Union and implement needed regulations in a manner in which it finds suitable.


It wouldn’t: the EU already regrets giving Switzerland the Swiss option, so it is scarcely likely to give bigger, more troublesome Britain the same deal. Again, disappointment and a referendum beckon.

This does not make logical sense. If Switzerland has such a deal but the EU isn't keen on it (mainly because they want Switzerland to join as the Swiss make a great deal of money out of the fact that highly taxed Europeans put their money in Switzerland - with the Swiss joining the EU this would end) then why wouldn't Britain, a country much more vital in terms of trade to the EU be unable to negotiate an even better deal than Switzerland?

Just as with the point on free trade agreement above, a little common sense will find that these points are moot.


He also has powerful sympathisers in Europe, including Germany’s Angela Merkel, but they seldom become useful allies because Britain is seen as a blackmailing zealot.

No, Britain (by which we mean the British people) are viewed in Europe as unwilling and incompatible with the final end goal of the European project - that is, a political superstate called 'Europe'. One only has to read why General De Gaulle vetoed British entry into the EEC to see him lay out this exact point, that Britain is incompatible with what this project is intended to end up as.


"Britain is insular, maritime, and linked by her exchanges, her markets and her supply routes to the most diverse and often the farthest-flung nations.” - Charles De Gaulle

....


Most of the heavy lifting, at home as well as in Brussels, will have to be done by Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne. They need to remind Britons of the victories that have been won within the EU and of the dangers of falling out of it

Not once in this article has it given a single 'victory' of any importance that Britain has 'won' in the European Union. Not one.


Britain’s position in Europe may become untenable, if the resolution of the economic crisis binds the countries of the euro zone ever closer and all other EU countries join. But that is not a certainty, and nor is Britain’s steady marginalisation. Difficult and often humiliating as it may be, the best course is to stick close to Europe, and try to bend it towards Britain.

This is the juicy bit, this is the part which i've been talking of since the beginning of this post yet have not yet backed up. But unlike the Economist with this article, I will back my claims up and I have many more on request that I can dig out if anybody wishes to read them. So here goes as to why Europe cannot be 'bended' to Britain's will, on why the Eurozone and European Union will integration deeper (and yes, it is a certainty) and why 'sticking close to Europe' will mean the end of Britain as an independent country.

"The future will belong to the Germans... ...when we build the House of Europe. In the next two years, we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle but it is worth the fight." - Helmut Kohl, 1996.

"No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice that any adequate plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into their abandonment of their traditional economic defences..." - Peter Thorneycroft

I will post many more quotes later (all of which are far more important and explicit than the above two which I found with a quick search on Google) or tommorow as an add on post with a conclusion, as i'm having to go and clear out my room at the moment. But the main rebuttal of this argument put forth by the Economist is pretty much done. Feel free to pick me out over anything i've said and I shall back it up.