European arguments are not persuasive

I WAS interested to read the views of Barry Morton on Europe (Vital We Stay In Europe, Letters, June 19) but I have to say the evidence he relies on is very shaky indeed.

 

I WAS interested to read the views of Barry Morton on Europe (Vital We Stay In Europe, Letters, June 19)  but I have to say the evidence he relies on is very shaky indeed. 

Paid holidays (eg. 25 days per year in the Civil Service by 1966), welfare (the Welfare State has been a British Institution since 1948), safety at work (it used to be called The Factories act, 1961 and The Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963), pensions, housing etc all predated the UK’s membership of the EEC. In fact some of it predated the EEC itself.  Nevertheless, Mr Morton clearly has passionately held views, so I would like to raise one or two issues upon which we all might ponder before casting our votes in the promised referendum.

In 1975 I voted for continued membership of the European Economic Community (The Common Market). I understood perfectly well that some adjustments to our border controls would be needed in order to create a fair market. I accepted that the free movement of goods, services, capital and people between member states would be among the measures needed to achieve the desired ‘level playing field’. It has to be said though that what was being contemplated at the time was designed for application among just nine nation states, each of which were relatively prosperous with well managed economies.

Free movement was expected to be quite light. The addition of umpteen more states, some of which have underdeveloped and badly managed economies is a circumstance we had not allowed for. I may well have voted differently had I known.

Just as seriously; no one but politicians and lawyers had any idea that national sovereignty was already under threat. In landmark rulings in the 1960s, the European Court had decided that European law was to have primacy (including ‘Direct Effect’) over narional law. However, these facts were given precious little publicity. Even to the extent that I would describe it as concealment. To put it bluntly: we were lied to.  Maastricht was still a long way off but the process was already quietly and discretely well under way. Academics at the time called it ‘Elite Led Gradualism’. To my mind, a very revealing phrase. Had I known I may well have voted differently.

Whether you accept that free movement and national sovereignty are major worries or not it must be of some concern that we had to be lied to to get us to where we are now. But there is one further issue about which there can be very little argument.  Nobody nowadays would seriously suggest that the European Union is an efficient, well managed organisation. Typical of the weakness of European politicians is the decision about ‘convergence’. In preparation for the introduction of the single currency (the Euro) there was general agreement that the national economies should be more convergent, that is to say performing similarly within set bounds.

A set of rules and criteria was laid out so that convergence could be measured.  However, convergence proved difficult to achieve within a politically expedient timeframe so the rules were largely ignored and then quietly dropped. In Europe ideology trumps common sense. In Europe ideology rules, OK! As a result of which chaos has ensued and just look at where we are now. Had I known that I almost certainly would have voted differently.

Moreover, we are not governed by our elected representatives as we might suppose.  The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ignored the treaties from which it derives its authority and has pursued an agenda of its own about the political landscape in Europe. At any and all attempts to curb their excesses they cry ‘foul’ and allege interference with the independence of the judiciary (judicial independence is something on which we particularly pride ourselves here in the UK). So politicians tread warily around the subject and as a result we are, in effect, governed by judges.  What makes this especially problematic is that the rerasoning in ECJ judgments is frequently bizarre. Look at any number of rulings involving Human Rights, or if you know one, ask any law student to explain the ruling in Plaumann & Co v Commission, Case 25/62.

So it has been generally acknowledged that Europe is not only poorly managed it is also undemocratic. Again we  should be grateful to the academics. They solved the problem with their usual aplomb. They gave it a label: ‘The Democratic Deficit’, and that, for them, and for the politicians seemed to do the trick. Not that I’m a cynic or anything like that, you understand.

Against these doubts, the case for continued membership does not seem to me to be overly compelling. For example, if ever closer union (centralisation) is such a good thing for Europe, why is devolution (decentralisation) the flavour of the day in Britain? And again, does anybody think that the Europeans ae going to throw away the benefits of a very decent trade surplus with us simply because we cancel our membership of their club? Of course not. Also consider this: we are now much less reliant on manufacturing than we used to be and more so on service industries. So it seems reasonable to look at the Swiss experience. They seem to manage fairly happliy without the advantages of either EU membership or close worldwide ties with a Commonwealth. I wonder how.

One final point: I recall that during the early 1970s in the run up to membership of the EEC, the National Coal Board, which had experience of mass redundancies, was given the job of developing processes to be ready for the management of the large scale redundancies in the steel industry which were the inevitable consequence of joining the Common Market. Why? Because we had a nationalised steel industry  (remember British Steel?) which the Europeans interpreted as subsidisation and state subsidies were, and are, against the rules in the EEC. The fishing industry has been equally devastated, but for different reasons. I am afraid that the best one could say, even at the time, was that membership was a mixed blessing.

If, by now, you’re thinking that I am a Euro-sceptic, let me say that if that is true then I must also be a UK-sceptic, a UKIP-sceptic, a Labour-sceptic, a Tory-sceptic and even (for what it might be worth now) a Liberal-sceptic.

However, I do look forward eagerly to seeing what changes Mr Cameron is able to secure, and especially whether they resolve any of my doubts. Until then my vote is undecided and I have to say that, as heartfelt as it is, I have not found Mr Morton’s appeal to be completely persuasive.

Richard Beeley, Maltby