On Friday 27th June the House of Lords gave an unopposed Second Reading (as is its custom at a Second Reading) to the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill, a Private Member's Bill introduced by Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
In introducing his Bill, Lord Pearson said:
The Bill's object is clear. It requires the Government to set up an independent inquiry into what life might really be like outside the European Union, especially for our economy, defence and constitution. It requires the result to be made public, together with the financial cost of our membership of the EU.
Will the Government accept the challenge, so that we can at last have the honest debate which all governments of the last thirty years have avoided? We shall see. Meanwhile, a few extracts from the lengthy and wide-ranging debate on Lord Pearson's Bill now follow:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Let us take the UK contribution to the EU own resources. The gross contribution is around £10,000 million per annum and the net is around £3,800 million per annum. The public see no tangible benefit for that outlay and believe that the money would be better spent by the United Kingdom Government on improved pensions, better schools and better health rather than by the corrupt "octopus", I had better put in there, and fraud-ridden Commission in Brussels.
Of course the Europhiles say that this is a small price to pay for access to the single market. But even that is a myth. We have access to that market anyway, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, pointed out. Norway, Switzerland and the United States, all of whose economies are dynamic, while the EU's is moribund, are able to trade with the European Union. Indeed, according to Global Britain briefing paper 27 - I must declare an interest as one of the founders of that organisation - which was based on figures from Eurostat, between 1992 and 2000, the United States increased its exports to the EU at twice the rate of France and Germany. So although the United States is not part of the single market, does not have a free-trade agreement and is therefore subject to the external tariff, and has a strong currency, it is performing twice as well as those major countries which are members of the EU. It seems therefore that far from doing better inside the single market, you do better outside.
Being a member of the EU is not therefore a necessary component of trading with it. That gives a lie to the tired old assertion that trade and jobs depend on membership of the European Union. Indeed, since 1973, the total UK deficit in trade in goods with the EU amounts to some £150 billion - £150 billion - and that represents a great loss of manufacturing industry and jobs. Indeed, one of the main arguments put forward for joining the Common Market was to save manufacturing jobs and industry, but that has not transpired as manufacturing as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 32 per cent in 1973 to less than 19 per cent at present.
.......
An examination of all the elements of our continued membership of the EU is necessary. Surely we ought to examine the case for repatriating the CAP and we have not even done it in the new review that has been agreed. We ought also to take back under our own control our fishing waters instead of dismissing such policies as mad or disingenuous. Are we not entitled to challenge the view that outside the EU our influence as a country would be diminished when, as part of a union of 25 diverse countries, our influence on an increasing number of issues is likely to be rather less than ten per cent?
That is a serious question, because as a fully independent nation with a great history and unrivalled experience in diplomacy, we are far more likely to influence world affairs than if we are a mere fraction of a regional grouping.
Lord Harris of High Cross: For the life of me I cannot honestly see what objection there can be to an up-to-date, broad, cost-benefit assessment of membership of the European Union. Above all, when opinion is so widely polarised on the merits of being dragged further into the imbroglio of a new constitution, what are we to make of those who would obstruct an independent, factual inquiry? The only reasoned objection to a similar Bill three years ago came from my old friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, whom on this single issue I have renamed "Lord Howe of Aberration".
In Hansard on 17th March 2000 at col. 1819 he thought it a waste of resources. He said that all major parties favoured staying in the EU. But has he forgotten that all parties once favoured fixed exchange rates, an incomes policy, state industry and similar assorted mischief? Indeed it was with his help that all these consensus views were mercifully abandoned. Today opinion polls are also moving against the BBC orthodoxy on Europe. .......
There is certainly no lack of estimates, as we have heard and will no doubt hear more. The last Pink Book recorded direct payments to the EU and its institutions of a staggering £90 billion over ten years. Allowing for receipts under CAP, regional and social support and so on, the annual cost to Britain appears to be running at £15 billion. The OECD has estimated the additional cost of CAP-inflated food prices at £9 billion a year, and a further £5 billion added by some authorities to cover the higher prices caused by so-called anti-dumping duties. Even allowing for the "Thatcher rebate", which runs at about £3 billion a year, this total cost of £29 billion would devour almost three per cent of GDP. The cost of complying with the welter of social legislation has been further estimated by the Institute of Directors to add a further £9 billion a year to the price of British production at home and abroad.
So, we have the mind-numbing first approximation of £38 billion a year. Suppose such a figure were exaggerated and that it was only half; it would be £20 billion a year. The question is: what is the best independently computed estimate of the range of costs? I believe that as an answer we must follow something along the lines of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: The background to the debate is the explicit, determined and ever-increasing movement of federalism within the European Union. I voted for Britain to remain in the EEC, as it then was, and I should like to remind noble Lords of what Ted Heath, the Prime Minister, said at the time. He argued that entry was entirely an economic matter; that we would benefit from the gains from trade and from the dynamic effects which would come from being part of a larger market. He specifically stated:
There is no question of eroding any national sovereignty; there is no blueprint for a federal Europe. There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.
That statement is now laughable and rightly ridiculed. However, I must ask: how many Ministers from these Benches as well as from the Benches Opposite have I heard say something similar over the years?
Since that time, in one area after another we have seen sovereignty handed to Brussels. Most recently the proposals for a new European constitution, which have emerged from the Convention on the Future of Europe, transfer even greater powers to the EU at the expense of nation states. Indeed, they explicitly acknowledge federalism.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is a curious thing that the notion of an objective examination of the pros and cons of remaining in the European Union should be seen by many people as provocative, even outrageous. .......
Why should there be that feeling of outrage? It is, undoubtedly, because for many, particularly those in the six original EEC member states - Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries - the EU has the status of a religion. To question its authority, its beneficence or its glory is sacrilegious. It is as if somebody in sixteenth-century Spain had cast doubt on the existence of the Virgin Mary or on the physical resurrection of Jesus. The comparison can be extended. Even when Euro-enthusiasts admit the existence of serious corruption and other grave faults in the EU, it is considered extremely bad form - almost treasonable - to hark upon them. Indeed, whistleblowers in the European Commission and other institutions of the Community have a terrible time, although elsewhere such whistleblowers are much admired. .......
Perhaps a graceful withdrawal from the fetters of the EU, while remaining a member of the European economic area, in company with Norway and Iceland, would be the happiest solution for ourselves and for the continentals. ....... Unfair competition from illegally subsidised continental steel mills, about which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, so understandably complained in the debate on the steel industry two days ago, would be no worse than it is now. The illegal French refusal to recognise the qualifications of British ski instructors would be no worse than it is now. British families would no longer pay £470 a year extra because of EU taxes imposed on imported food, as the Department of Trade and Industry revealed on 5th June. Those are not my figures; they are the figures of the DTI. Our long-suffering and battered fishermen - those who survive - would no longer be sacrificed for the benefit of Spain.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: Let us look briefly at the balance sheet. My noble friend Lord Pearson has already dealt with employment, but it is worth underlining that there would be no, or very few, job losses if we left the EU. Well, there probably would be some among our MEPs and the Euro-apparat, but we could probably live with that. They could be redeployed in more worthwhile jobs. We run a massive balance of trade deficit with the EU. Is anyone seriously suggesting that Germany, France and other EU member states would stop exporting to one of their strongest markets if we left the EU? The idea is infantile. It would be totally counter-productive. Britain is economically vital to the other member states - more so than membership is vital to us. .....
....... We must not forget the Common Agricultural Policy, which eats up almost half of the current EU budget. We have today had talk and news of reform of the CAP. At first glance, it looks like little more than a re-labelling exercise. It certainly does nothing to reduce the burden on British taxpayers. The CAP will cost as much; the money will simply be spent in a different way. We get a thoroughly bad deal out of the CAP; that will not change. We would be far better off running our own agriculture.
What of fisheries? We have no fishing industry to speak of any longer - the shameful result of Mr. Heath and the Foreign Office concluding that British fisheries and fishermen were expendable. The common fisheries policy is as much of an economic, social and environmental disaster as the CAP. Of course, we pay through the nose for those failures through our contribution to the EU budget which, since our entry into the EU in 1973, now exceeds £150 billion - money that would surely have been far better spent in this country rather than being channelled through Brussels, and our getting a little bit back with EU regulations attached.
Lord Vinson: Sadly, history is increasingly undervalued in our schools, but it remains true that those who do not know where they have come from really do not know where they are going. Our own pattern of self-governance with its own judiciary may not be perfect by any means, but to hand the governance to others, and with it effectively destroy the mechanism that enables change is, in my view, a recipe for social and political unrest of the first magnitude.
Those who would push for an ever closer federal Europe echo the belief of its early founders that this would prevent war. But such belief is founded historically on totally the wrong assumptions. Wars between democracies have yet to happen. Wars are caused by political or monarchic dictators. Civil strife, on the other hand, is caused by frustration and inability to right wrongs. This is the essential weakness of the European Union, which has moved from a simple trading relationship to one that merges national, economic and political sovereignty into a bureaucracy virtually immune to influence.
Democracy as we know it is a very frail plant. Some say that it only just works because of a residual authority from a previous autocracy; others that it is a charade and that it is not really democratic at all in the widest sense. But whatever its imperfections, it does give the electorate a safety valve. They can, by voting in or out the elected representative they know by name, effect to some extent the changes they seek. Not so the deeper we go into the governance from Europe. The democratic deficit is inherent in its structure.
If one stretches that democratic elastic too far, it will snap. Currently we have roughly 65,000 electors per Member of Parliament. We have around 600,000 electors per Euro MP, a constituency ten times the size. Most voters will never meet him. His constituency is too big for him to make effective personal contact, and all the harder when he is drawing his expenses in Strasbourg and Brussels. .......
Just over two hundred years ago, our own American colonies declared war against us, their mother country: their slogan no taxation without representation. History may not repeat itself exactly, but human nature does not change. The same conditions are inherent in the euro decision, which is really about democracy, accountability and patriotism. A government which loses control over the economy eventually loses control over everything else. As powers move up to Brussels and minor powers move down to the regionalism that is deliberately designed to weaken national government, nothing will be left for Parliament to do but argue over the price of dog licences. For MPs to vote to transfer even more power to Brussels must be the finest example ever of turkeys voting for Christmas. .......
In this country, one used to be able to put right bad regulation. A constituent could see his MP, who in turn would arrange to see the Minister responsible. He and his department were responsive to constructive criticism and, mostly, wrongs were righted. That is not so today. Critical complaint is no more effective than punching a jelly, resulting in total frustration and resentment, and sowing all the seeds of potential civil discord. Is it surprising that people are increasingly voting less? They are becoming disconnected from the institutions that are supposed to serve them.
Our citizens are beginning to seethe and it is not surprising that every poll shows increasing antagonism towards greater Euro-federalism and an awakening concern about our loss of national sovereignty. One size of government fits no better than one size of interest rate, and the democratic deficit implicit in Euro-federalism sows in itself the destruction of the entire concept. .......
I am convinced that any assessment would conclude that we would be better off out. What is more, we should get out before even more harm is done and before the situation gets even harder to undo. I hope that this debate will do something to save the independence of this ancient and wonderful country.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: There is a perfectly good European organisation of which we are members - it has been too little referred to in the debate so far - and that is the Council of Europe. ....... The Council of Europe has enormous power to set things going, to help matters, to urge civil rights- of which it was the pioneer - and to support our heritage.
....... The objection to the Council of Europe always used to be that it was a worthy body but it had no teeth. Now that we are in a body that grows more and more teeth every month, I am not sure that that particular criticism carries much weight with either your Lordships or the citizens of this country. We need rather fewer teeth. We do not like the teeth - they bite, and they bite in the wrong place.
The Earl of Liverpool: I believe we are an outward-looking island. We have strong ties with Europe but we also have strong ties with other parts of the world. Why, oh why, do we not have a serious look at the possibility of joining NAFTA and entering a free trade agreement with our European partners. They assuredly need to trade with us just as much as we need to trade with them, so I do not believe there would be any problem here, and we could be the bridge into Europe for our American and other allies and friends around the world. .......
We could literally become the Hong Kong of Europe, and we could have the best of both worlds. NAFTA does not have a bureaucratic government or the structure of a bureaucratic government, so the costs would be minimal in comparison. We could then build on and develop our relations with North America, which is undoubtedly our strongest ally in the world today. It would require a leap of faith to do that, but is that not just the sort of thing that UK plc should seriously consider before signing up to the European constitution, since when that is done there will be no going back?
I conclude by saying that I very much hope that the Bill will be passed so that the people of our country can have the opportunity of weighing up the arguments for and against. Only then would we see true democracy at work.
Through much of history it was widely believed that the Earth was flat and that if you sailed too far out to sea you would fall off the edge into an abyss. This belief has, of course, long since been disproved, but while it held sway it exercised a powerful influence on human imagination and behaviour. The fear of the unknown has, needless to say, always been an important factor in psychology, and supporters of the European Union have always played on this.
There is very little real support for membership of the EU among the British people; they dislike the loss of self-government, the often petty and ridiculous directives and regulations, the destruction of our fishing industry, the corruption and waste inherent in the Common Agricultural Policy, the arrogance of the Euro-elite. But they have been conditioned by the pro-EU propaganda machine into believing that something terrible will happen to Britain if we leave the EU: perhaps loss of trade, perhaps isolation in the world. We know these fears are unfounded, and that there is plenty of evidence to disprove them; our problem is getting through the barrier of fear put up by the pro-EU lobby.
We therefore owe a great debt of gratitude to Lord Pearson of Rannoch for introducing his European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill in the House of Lords. The chief provision of this Bill is to establish an independent inquiry into what the consequences would be for Britain of withdrawal from the European Union.
We are confident that if all the facts come out our case will be vindicated; the same cannot be said of our opponents.
This was the theme of the League's most recent public meeting, held in a House of Lords committee room on 24th June, and addressed by Mike Rowbotham and Sir Richard Body.
Mr. Rowbotham, a campaigner for monetary reform and author of The Grip Of Death, explained how only three per cent of the sterling currently in circulation comprises notes and coins; the remaining 97 per cent was created by the banks as interest-bearing debt through the fractional reserve system.
A similar situation obtained in the Euro area, said Mr. Rowbotham, and the Euro was no different from any other of the world's main currencies; it was another bank-based, debt-based system. Problems experienced within the British single currency area, such as the north-south divide, would be exacerbated in a much larger single currency area. The Euro was likely to lead to national poverty, with whole regions dependent on Brussels handouts.
Mr. Rowbotham reflected on how difficult it was in Britain to get our Government to do what we wanted; how much more difficult it would be to get Brussels to do what we wanted.
Sir Richard Body began by asking how many people at the meeting had read The Grip Of Death; he considered it to be one of the most important books written in recent times. He went on to draw attention to how the amount of debt-based money in the system had exploded during the Heath administration in the early 1970s, as a direct consequence of entry into the Common Market; in 1970, notes and coins represented almost twenty per cent of the sterling in circulation, as opposed to three per cent today.
One of the consequences of Common Market entry was a sharp increase in food prices, as we adjusted to the Common Agricultural Policy; wheat, for example, increased from £23 per tonne to £75 per tonne. This pushed up wages, unemployment increased and exporters found things difficult. Unemployment threatened to reach one million.
The Government responded with a "dash for growth": an artificial stimulation of the economy through £4 billion of Government borrowing - a huge amount in those days. Government securities - gilts - to this value were created and sold to the banks, who treated them as deposits and promptly lent out several times this amount to their customers, on the assumption that not everyone would ask for their money back at the same time. The result was the inflation of the 1970s - rising to 27 per cent in 1975.
Sir Richard said that debt-based money had been a curse, but at least the people still had the power to elect a government which would do something about it. But what if we joined the Euro and then only the European Central Bankers in Frankfurt could decide? Then we would be able to do nothing. * * * * * *
We were sorry to learn of the death in July of Tom Neate, who had been an active supporter of the League from its earliest days, serving for several years as Hon. Treasurer and Committee member.
The following appreciation has been contributed by Mrs. Diana Christmas, a friend and colleague of Tom Neate for many years.
I first met Tom and Jean Neate in 1964, in the run-up to the General Election, when Mr. John Paul, my husband, stood as the Independent and Anti-Common Market candidate in the Bexley constituency against Edward Heath, the sitting Member of Parliament and later Prime Minister. At this time the Anti-Common Market League was the only organisation totally opposed to signing the Treaty of Rome without consulting the people (others differed only on detail).
John and I took a small furnished house which we used as our HQ, to establish our residential qualification and to get to know the area. Tom and Jean joined us at the very beginning and helped us with every aspect of the campaign: introductions, meetings, canvassing, delivering leaflets. On polling day, together with a handful of stalwarts, they helped to man the polling stations as tellers wearing enormous purple rosettes, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. without a break, to help show our flag. We were, of course, beaten, but thanks to Tom and Jean and, of course, Sir Robin Williams and our other stalwarts from all over the country, we became an "item" in the struggle that continues today.
The following years until John's death in 1969 were a period of great effort to keep the League active. Tom again gave us enormous help and practical support. He was by profession in the printing and stationery supply world, and he advised and supplied all our requirements; we would have been lost without him.
Upon John's death in 1969, a desolate time for me, Sir Robin, who had been Treasurer to John's chairmanship, immediately took over the chair of the League accompanied by Tom who, without hesitation, replaced Robin as Treasurer. They proved a staunch team for the task ahead of three years of intense activity, after Edward Heath had formally applied to join the Common Market.
Tom's general support and active work for the League went on for many years, restricted only by health problems, but I cannot do justice to his later activities, as after I remarried I left London for Wales more than thirty years ago. However, I shall always remember him not only as a wonderful partner to John, myself and the League, but also as head of a lovely family of which he was inordinately proud, as a great home-made wine expert, and as a patient gardener, even when my dog lifted his leg on his favourite rose.
I am proud to have known Tom and my thoughts are with Jean and his family.
This booklet was commissioned by the Anti-Common Market League. It is written by Dr. Brian Burkitt the eminent economist, and includes a Foreword by Frederick Forsyth, the celebrated novelist. It provides a powerful case against giving up the Pound for the Euro, for both economic and political reasons.and deserves to be widely read.
Available at the special price of £3.00 (inc.p.&p.) from the Anti-Common Market League 28 Highdown, Worcester Park, Surrey, KT4 7HZ
Bulk orders are also welcomed: £10.00 for four copies; £12.00 for six copies
Buy a few for your friends!
Our members, and especially those active in politics, continue to go to meetings and speak at meetings. We can claim much of the credit for the strengthening opposition to any further destruction of our liberties and any further interference by the European Union or anyone else.
The arguments against any change for the worse are so very strong.
First and foremost is the financial loss we suffer from belonging to the European Union under the present rules and organisation. The mere cost of the salaries of the officials employed and their office accommodation and pensions is enormous, quite apart from the corruption that sometimes occurs. Also there has to be added, on top of the legitimate salaries of hardworking officials, the vast payments to those who are at the top of the bureaucracy and who reward themselves so remarkably well.
Second is the financial cost of the policies the European Union adopts - raising prices and restricting trading activities which do not fit in with the biased policies of the EU.
Thirdly, the most unpopular and most contrary to our interests is that we lose much of our traditional freedom to run our own affairs. To British people, with our proud traditions of political liberty, it is inexcusable that we have to submit much of our political and economic life to the interference of foreigners, often ignorant of British interests, and sometimes consciously opposed to our interests and way of life.
What more can we do? We have already done a great deal, and the patriotism of those of our politicians who still put Britain first has hindered many of the worst possible evils.
But we can and should do more. We need not only to have a majority of politicians on our side, as there is some reason to think we already have, although they need to work more closely together and not to be too much tied by party loyalties. We also need to have an active majority among ordinary voters for any referendum that may arrive.
We have done our bit in meetings, magazine articles and booklets. What we must further remember is how much neighbours are influenced by one another. If we want to make sure of winning a referendum for freedom, we must contact in good time our neighbours in the place where we live, and our friends all over the country. If ordinary people continue, as in the past, to talk about our need to preserve our independence, then our independence is likely to be preserved.
The League held a successful summer reception at the Hoop and Toy public house in South Kensington on 10th July, attended by around thirty members and guests.
Our special guests were our President, Sir Richard Body, and Lord Pearson of Rannoch and his charming daughter, Zara. Sir Richard made an inspiring speech, ensuring that we all went home with fresh hope in our hearts. We indeed have good grounds for optimism, helped by the sterling work in and out of Parliament by Lord Pearson and Sir Richard.
As well as being a social and political success, the reception produced a modest profit for the League's funds.
We all know that if there is a referendum on giving up the Pound, the Government will not seek to conduct the contest on a level playing field, but will seek to manipulate the mechanics of the referendum in its own favour as much as possible. They are already trying to do this in respect of the level of funds available to each side, the wording of the question and the provision of Government "information". It has recently also emerged that the Government is considering gerrymandering the electorate for a referendum by allowing citizens of other EU countries resident in the United Kingdom to vote in a referendum on the euro. This could amount to several hundred thousand people. According to a spokesman at the Department of Constitutional Affairs, "It is being considered at the moment. There is no precedent for this".
Ian Davidson, Labour MP for Glasgow Pollok, said, "I am greatly concerned that the Government will try to bias any euro referendum by manipulating the date, the rules, the question, the spending limits and now even the electorate." He added, "A referendum vote in Britain influenced by foreign voters would be morally bankrupt. At a time when trust in the integrity of politics is at an all-time low, no one should be trying to rig a referendum."
A decision about whether or not to join the euro should be a national decision taken by the British electorate alone. This latest report shows yet again the essentially fraudulent nature of the Government's approach to the question.
It is claimed that fish feel pain, but do ordinary Europeans feel joy? The question arises from the choice of "The Ode To Joy" as the European Union's supranational anthem. As it is doubtful whether directives or regulations engender pleasure, the answer is probably "no", at least for Europe's hoi polloi. For genuine "EUROPEANS", the answer is different.
The Joy Of Europe, an upmarket alternative to "The Joy Of Sex", inspires a few select seekers after Euro-nirvana. Travelling back and forth across the continent at public expense to gatherings with fellow Europeans - less a meeting of minds than of tastebuds and stomachs - these devotees of the Goddess Joy have banished war from the fields of Flanders to those of Yugoslavia and the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. After a particularly convivial bonding session they are often too inebriated to declare war on anyone - leaving this to the Americans.
Much pleasure is also derived from EU fraud. However, the forced resignation of an entire European Commission may have had less to do with deliberate fraud than the result of being in a "state of joy", a higher level of semi-consciousness!
The Joy of Europe is like a mind-bending drug and its addicts fear above all the withdrawal symptoms of "cold turkey" (exclusion from the EU and its potential joys).
No wonder they react angrily to those who threaten their happy state. Commission whistleblowers are punished severely. Opponents of Euro membership and the new EU Constitution are labelled "xenophobes" and "chauvinists" - eurospeak for "killjoys" and "spoilsports". But can we blame them? Would we want to give up all this or have to pay for it out of our own pockets?
The League has a small supply of lapel badges in the shape of a "£" sign, which can be worn as a subtle but effective statement of support for keeping our currency. They are available at £1 each from our Worcester Park address.