No EU Superstate
Following on from David Cameron’s call to LibDems and MatGB’s post yesterday, MatGB has made some further observations.
The key point yesterday was that while the left and right of the political compass have now collapsed into a broad centrist consensus, the major differentiator is now liberty from the state. There are two possible ways this has come about. Either:
- The Labour Party’s increased authoritarianism has forced Conservatives to move down to the libertarian point of view; or
- Libertarianism was the natural place for Conservatives to move to regardless of the other parties.
Personally, I would give Labour less credit and go for the second option. If Labour hadn’t been overly authoritarian the younger blood in the Conservatives would still have been uncomfortable with the party’s previous position on homosexuality, marriage and other illiberal policies.
David Cameron’s call to the LibDems does ignore the economic division between the LibDems and the Tories. The Tories are, while they’re moving to the bottom of the compass, more economically right-wing than the LibDems. While parties are broad houses and some reorganisation may come about due to this gradual shift, and while economic differences may appear to be less important in this brave new era, it still is one of the key dividing factors (not to mention allowing murderers and paedophiles to vote – though a read of the LibDem 2005 manifesto does show a genuine desire and understanding of the need to punish as well as rehabilitate).
There is, though, still one dividing principle that is not covered by the political compass: Europe.
Regular readers will know my position on the EU debate and anyone that watched Daniel Hannan’s interview on NewsNight last night will have heard it expressed extremely well. The EU costs us an extremely large amount of money which would be fine if it was about investing for a return, but it is not.
The EU spends a vast proportion of its income on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This policy pays inefficient farmers so that they do not go bankrupt or, if one was being cynical, become more efficient. The rest of its money it spends on standardisation (which, rather than trying to assist international trade by removing barriers to competition, involves ensuring that our electric plugs are reduced to the European quality/safety; restrict the bendiness of bananas, attempt to outlaw double-decker buses, stop plugs from being repairable, etc.), and propping up the poorer economies of Europe.
It is very laudable that the EU wishes to provide funds to the former Communist countries so that they can progress, but should our aid (as Daniel Hannan said last night) be going to countries that are growing of their own accord, or to ones that cannot feed their people? Why should we fund, from involuntary taxes, the progress of Eastern European countries to the detriment of English citizens? Most reasonable Brits do not like the different amounts spent by government on residents of different UK countries (see England Disadvantaged) and yet that’s a minor difference compared to the expenditure currently taken from English taxpayers to fund Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Cyprus (and others) and soon Romania and Bulgaria.
If there are advantages to this expensive membership of the European Union, is there anything we are getting from it that could not be obtained by association similar to that negotiated by Norway and the Isle of Man? The answer to that question is unambiguously, no. In fact the Isle of Man and Norway both import fewer EU goods than does the UK placing the UK in a much stronger negotiating position.
That the Liberal Democrats support a federal EU while the Tories do not represents a significant ideological differentiator that will remain regardless of the economic movements of the Tories and the Liberal Democrats between now and the next General Election. David Cameron’s first few actions have been bravely eurosceptic and have moved the Parliamentary party even further towards the position held by the membership and electorate.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by niconoclast on December 17th, 2005 - 5:06 pm
Can we ever see the day when the Conservative party will follow logic and advocate withdrawal of UK from the EU?
Until they can do this very simple thing I for one cannot give them my (insignificant I know) support.
#2 by Gav on December 17th, 2005 - 5:40 pm
I believe the day will come, but I don’t think it would come before an election. This is entirely my feelings, of course, but I would guess the media furore would detract from the rest of the Tory message.
A post-election withdrawal would be much less controversial…
#3 by Paul on December 17th, 2005 - 6:08 pm
Much as I’d like to see the UK withdraw from the EU, I can’t really see it happening in the near future.
A pity, as we are being fleeced blind by the EU – and all while the nasty little quisling that passes for our Prime Minister grins like a maniac.
#4 by niconoclast on December 17th, 2005 - 8:22 pm
Everything about being a Conservative should make the whole idea of the EU repellent and anathema. Yet the party continues to support UK membership of that evil organisation. This to me is something I cannot get my head around -and believe me I have spent long enough trying.
#5 by Ken on December 17th, 2005 - 11:42 pm
The idea of withdrawing from the EU simply doesn’t make sense. We’d still, for example, be in effect subject to all the regulations of the EU, or else we would be taking ourselves out of the EU market, because they would still have the same standards. Of course, we’d have no say in the matter, either.
There are good arguments for EU budgetary reform, but helping develop markets for our own good is in the national interest.
Blair, of course, has been a craven coward. He should have demanded that other countries make concessions to him, held on to the rebate and refused a deal other than on his terms, and then given some of the money saved to chosen projects in Eastern Europe that Britain was happy to invest in.
#6 by Gav on December 17th, 2005 - 11:55 pm
We import more than we export to Europe so the loss to the EU would be more if we were unable to trade than vice versa. Regardless, however, of the need to comply to some standards, the £12bn annual cost would make a real difference to the UK economy.
The main point about EU membership is not the trade concerns (and the standards we would have to abide by in making trade arrangements with the EU) it is the non-democratic way it is run, financed and amended it is the number of non-trade-related regulations and directives; it is the number of trade and non-trade related regulations and directives that are completely ignored by our EU neighbours and which we follow to the letter.
And yes, Blair has been a coward. Not only over the rebate, but also on demanding accounting “irregularities” be corrected immediately and with his Commission nomination (Mandelson). Blair (and Major before him) should also be questioned on the quality of their negotiating when each new treaty takes more non-trade-related powers away from the UK government.
Free-trade (a la Norway) could be negotiated (with few concessions) and therefore, EU membership is unnecessary.
#7 by James Hellyer on December 18th, 2005 - 3:52 pm
“We’d still, for example, be in effect subject to all the regulations of the EU”
Untrue. Only those businesses that traded with the EU would be subject to its laws and regulations. This would therefore provide a massive dergulatory windfall for the majority of businesses in the UK.
“Of course, we’d have no say in the matter, either.”
True in the sense that we wouldn’t be involved in drafting legislation, just as we aren’t with any other foreign markets we trade in, however the WTO would provide protection from discriminatory regulations.
“… helping develop markets for our own good is in the national interest.”
Like the third world markets the EU shuts out?
#8 by Richard Gadsden on February 19th, 2006 - 9:41 pm
Why is it that you want to leave the EU instead of fixing it?
It’s undemocratic – so propose abolishing the commissioners and replacing them with an elected government.
It’s corrupt – so propose giving the Court of Auditors some real powers to do comething about it.
Laws aren’t enforced in other countries – so have a European Civil Service and European courts to ensure the same enforcement everywhere.
It’s broken, yes. It’s broken because it’s designed and run by the French Civil Service. Break the enarques and you’ll get a federal, democratic Europe.
To me, leaving the EU makes as much sense as England leaving the UK – it’s not even a consideration.
#9 by Gav on February 20th, 2006 - 8:35 pm
Thank you Richard for your comments. I would point you to the post I shall make in a couple of minutes. If something is broken and you are not singularly able to change it then whistling in the wind is a waste of effort.
When whistling’s all you’re doing, no-one loses — really.
But when you’re spending £10bn of pure cash and when you’re losing more than that to anti-competitive legislation, agricultural interference, bureaucracy and nations who do not need our charity… Well then you’re being irresponsible.
If the EU magically stops acting like a larger France or Germany then we should request re-entry. In the meantime, we may as well get rich without them!