As the debate regarding the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union (EU) gets under way, the man in the street can expect to be bombarded with all manner of misinformation. There will be the usual lies, damned lies and statistics so beloved of politicians and their acolytes, much dissembling and plenty of ambiguity.
Despite all of this, there are certain facts which should not be ignored. Firstly, the EU owes its origin to the post-war world of the 1940s and 1950s, the desire of major western European nations to find a means to avoid another continental war and the perceived threats from the military, financial and economic might of the USA and Soviet Union. In 1951, France and West Germany formed the European Coal and Steel Community and in 1958 they were joined by Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg in creating the European Economic Community (EEC), or Common Market. At this time, the UK opted not to join the EEC and, instead, was a founder member of another free trade area, EFTA, in 1960. However, there was a subsequent change of heart and the UK made 2 attempts to join the EEC during the 1960s, on both occasions having its application vetoed by the French president, De Gaulle.
Eventually, in 1973, the UK was successful in gaining entry at the same time as Ireland and Denmark. However, joining this somewhat exclusive European club meant that the UK's membership of EFTA was terminated and its trade links with the many world wide nations of the Commonwealth also had to be severed; in future, the UK's trade with countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and so on, would have to be on terms negotiated by the various organs of the EEC. Over the years, the EEC grew further and transmogrified into the European Union, a body virtually unrecognizable from the Common Market which the UK had joined in 1973. There are now 28 member states with still more waiting in the wings, vast numbers of officials, huge volumes of legislation, a central bank and even a new currency for many of its members. Member states are bound hand and foot by rules and regulations dreamt up by faceless bureaucrats living and working hundreds and even thousands of miles away.
Those who want the UK to leave this organisation refer to issues of cross-border migration, the lack of transparency, institutional corruption, and its insularity and protectionism. They complain about the way in which national governments have, in effect, become subservient to the whims of distant legislators, most of whom have little concern for the interests of individual nations. The drive for 'ever closer union' and the creation of a 'United States of Europe' is seen as a nightmare scenario.
On the other hand, those who favour the UK's continued membership, seem to have little to support their argument other than nebulous fears about what might happen should the UK vote to leave. They say that the consequences could be dire, that there would be huge costs and job losses, and they've produced figures which they say support their claims. Lord Rose, formerly chief executive of Marks & Spencer and now appointed to lead the 'In' campaign, simply says that "it's not worth the risk" to leave. Again, nothing positive or concrete, just fear-mongering.
Many of those who favour continued membership seem to be executives in charge of large financial and commercial organisations, people who have vested interests in having identical financial, economic and trade regulations across as much of their areas of operation as possible. Others are political figures from a bygone age such as Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine, people who still live in the past, and Gordon Brown and John Prescott, whose left wing views sit comfortably with the predominantly socialist, centrally controlled nature of the EU.
The truths of all of this are that the EU is a construct of the past. Since its origins, the world has changed out of all recognition and there are now many more nations vying for significant international trade. The UK is one of the biggest economies in the world and, in the event of a 'No' vote, would have little difficulty in establishing its own links with many of these growing countries, as well as remaining a major trader within Europe. The EU itself is an impossible amalgam of such disparate nations, with vastly different histories, cultures and economies, that it cannot survive; it must change or die, whatever its current leaders desire.
If the UK votes to leave the EU, it could well be much more problematic for the future of the EU than of the UK. Indeed, a UK 'No' vote may well be the catalyst for a major rethink amongst European nations that could result in the emergence of a genuinely sustainable European bloc. Only time will tell, but I'll be voting to leave, and the sooner the better.
