The European Free Trade Association was set up as an alternative to the European Economic Community. It was quite successful in lowering trade barriers and encouraging co-operation among its members, without the supranational encumbrances of the EEC. The United Kingdom, Denmark and the Irish Republic were among the members of EFTA until joining the EEC in 1973.
The countries which have remained with EFTA rather than joining the European Union have fared remarkably well, and "The Case For EFTA" was the title of the League's most recent public meeting, held at The Clarence public house in Whitehall on 6th March, and addressed by Daniel Hannan, the well-known journalist and Conservative Member of the European Parliament.
Mr. Hannan is one of the few real orators in contemporary politics, and he had the audience's full attention in explaining the EFTA countries' success. Britain, with almost sixty million souls and the world's fourth-largest economy (perhaps soon to drop to fifth with the growth of China), could hardly be described as too small to survive outside the EU when compared with Switzerland (5.4 million) or Norway (4.6 million). Iceland, meanwhile, had a population comparable to that of the Borough of Croydon, while Liechtenstein's was all of 18,000!
The EFTA countries have full access to the European Economic Area of EU and EFTA combined, but are free from the Directives to which the EU countries are subject. They only make token payments to the EU budget, can determine their own agricultural policies, and Norway and Iceland have been able to retain and conserve their fisheries. The EFTA states are likewise sovereign in matters of international trade; they can make their own agreements with other countries or, if they prefer, they can "piggyback" on the deals the EU makes.
Mr. Hannan felt there was a tide of opinion in the country against drawing Britain more and more into a European superstate, and in favour of an EFTA-style alternative. He wanted one of the main parties to swim with this tide, and felt that his party, the Conservative Party, was the one to which this would come most naturally. Although not personally in favour of withdrawal from the EU, Mr. David Cameron, the new party leader, was not seeking to inhibit individual MPs from advocating this.
Democracy involved government being as close to the people as possible, and the European Union was simply incompatible with this; this theme had been explored in Direct Democracy, a book published in 2005, to which Mr. Hannan had contributed.
Mr. Hannan also explained some of the ways in which Britain suffered from the absurdities of the Common Agricultural Policy. We are more than self-sufficient in milk, yet farmers are limited by the quota system, milk production above the quota has to be poured down the drain, and some of our milk is imported. Likewise, we are selling quantities of butter and other foods to continental countries, while the same countries are selling identical foods to us, with all the unnecessary transportation that this involves.
Those attending the meeting were left in good heart by Mr. Hannan's affirmation that there is indeed an alternative to the European Union.
* * * * * *
On the only occasion when the British people have been consulted about regional government, the people of the North-East voted against it by 78 per cent to 22 per cent. Far from respecting this democratic decision, however, the Government seems intent on imposing regionalism on England. The Police are the latest to experience this; Mr. Charles Clarke, the strongly pro-EU Home Secretary, seems intent on forcing the present police forces, mostly based on counties, to merge into larger forces, with the clearly intended eventual destination of regional forces, based on the EU regions.
Virtually all the forces concerned have objected strongly to these plans, but the Home Secretary has taken not a blind bit of notice. This is all of a piece with the behaviour of a government intent on doing the will of Brussels in this regard.
The form of governance envisaged by the powers that be in Brussels is that there would be the European Union, a superstate. By-passing national governments, there would then be regions, implementing the will of the superstate. Below the regions would be sub-regions, replacing our traditional system of local government. Indeed, the Government is also busily engaged at the moment in trying to "reorganise" many of our local councils into larger units which could readily be converted into sub-regions. The Conservative Party, revitalised under its new Leader, could gain a lot of support and perform a great service for the Nation by opposing these iniquities with all its might.
***
In the run-up to the 2004 Euro-elections, the then Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Michael Howard, described the United Kingdom Independence Party as "cranks, weirdos, eccentrics and gadflies". This proved a mistake as it only served to boost UKIP's performance, largely at the Conservatives' expense.
The Conservatives' new Leader, Mr. David Cameron, has in many ways made an impressive start, but recently repeated Mr. Howard's mistake by describing UKIP as "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly".
Mr. Cameron is clearly concerned by UKIP's continuing threat to the Conservative Party's vote. But instead of throwing rather juvenile insults at UKIP, Mr. Cameron would be better advised to engage in constructive criticism of the EU, drawing UKIP supporters back into the Tory fold.
***
Of the many absurd aspects of the European Union, one of the most ridiculous is the way in which its "Parliament" regularly transports itself backwards and forwards between Brussels and Strasbourg.
Ironically for this supranational organisation, the continuation of meeting at Strasbourg is insisted upon by France as a matter of national interest and pride, and the cost is estimated at ś200 million per annum. It is also estimated that, through the travelling involved, 700 tonnes of carbon dioxide are put into the atmosphere in respect of MEPs alone, not counting the emissions in respect of Commission staff, journalists, lobbyists and assorted hangers-on.
Recently the European Parliament has again decided to continue this expensive and not particularly entertaining travelling show.
***
Sir Sean Connery is best known for two things: his film portrayal of James Bond and his support for the Scottish National Party. In a recent interview Sir Sean said that his conversion to Scottish nationalism "occurred when Ted Heath willingly closed down the Scottish fishing industry to join the Common Market. I found that shocking. And I spoke to Margaret Jay and Kenneth Clarke and neither knew about it." The abysmal responses of Baroness Jay and Mr. Clarke will come as no surprise to readers of BRITAIN. But given the origins of his support for the SNP, Sir Sean should realise that the real threat to Scotland comes not from Westminster but from Brussels.
* * * * * *
An electoral triumph awaits the party which promises a referendum on whether or not to leave the European Union.
At present the three main parties are more or less wholly pro-Europe. The Liberal Democrats are ideologically fixed and would not wish for a change; a large part, maybe a majority, of the Labour membership do wish for withdrawal, but New Labour in command would not permit it; and a majority of Conservative members and voters do want withdrawal, but the leadership is scared of offending the Europhiles, and suffers thereby an acute internal dilemma.
There is a fourth party, the United Kingdom Independence Party, which is explicitly committed to withdrawal, but it has no credibility with an electorate sophisticated enough to know that General Elections are about choosing a government and that UKIP has no recognised Cabinet or Policy for governing - hence its puny 400,000 votes (two per cent) in the 2001 General Election and 600,000 (four per cent) in 2005.
But in European elections, where party loyalty means nothing because MEPs of whatever party have no say in European government anyway (thus leaving voters free from usual loyalties), surely UKIP's two-and-a-half million votes (16 per cent) in the 2004 European election are screaming for attention?
If the Conservative leadership declared at the next General Election that it would hold a referendum on withdrawal, it would settle its internal dilemma by not taking sides but by taking instead the high moral line of submitting a crucial matter to the opinion (though not the final decision) of the people. It would also be giving vent to those two-and-a-half million UKIP voters (as well as a great many more).
Harold Wilson tried this tactic in the second 1974 General Election and it worked handsomely. His party was split over Europe but neither side could question his solution of a referendum. His move won the vote of the large and decisive section of the Tory Party led by Enoch Powell, whose line was that Freedom transcended Party.
The Editor invites responses to Mr. Pedraza's suggestion.
* * * * * *
Guidance notes are also available encouraging people to canvas for signatures. The Guidance notes and renunciation forms can be downloaded here or are available from the Membership Secretary at ACML.
* * * * * *
Far from prompting a democratic response from our masters in Brussels, the rejection of the proposed EU constitution by the Netherlands and France last year has resulted in an altogether more devious reaction.
The idea of a new European Union press agency has been put forward by the EU Commission in a desperate bid to improve the means of communication between the EU and its citizens.
In unveiling these plans, which are partially in response to the rejection of the EU constitution by French and Dutch voters, determined Eurocrats cited lack of information and a growing gap between the EU's ‚lites and its citizens as a key reason for the failure of the constitution. They claim that an EU press agency would help to reconnect the EU with the people. Indeed, such a move could be seen as paving the way to yet another referendum on the constitution.
The plans are part of a larger consultation initiative, the White Paper on Communication, which in itself is part of the "period of reflection" which was agreed upon following the defeat of the constitution last June.
The Paper lists a number of areas where the Commission wanted to see greater efforts. These include: "defining common principles; empowering citizens; working with the media and new technologies; understanding European public opinion; and doing the job together".
Aside from these vague objectives, the Commission has also drawn up a code of conduct for journalists and EU institutions to observe. Apparently this is to ensure that the EU's institutions, Members States and journalists agree on common principles and ways in which to "communicate Europe". National governments could be called upon to provide the facilities for the press agency with the idea that as many people as possible should have access to its "information".
A press agency under the guidance of the EU Commission, with Member States and journalists acting under a code of conduct, would be sure to produce a very one-sided story. If the Commission were directing the ways in which the media should "communicate Europe", it is unlikely that citizens of EU countries, who would fund the project through taxes, would receive fair and unbiased coverage of the issues. In connection with this proposal, the Vice-president of the Commission, Margot Wallstrom has been given the brief of conveying a "positive EU message", which would allow little room for other opinions to be heard.
* * * * * *
The governing party in Poland has said that it does not think there is any point adopting the euro. "We don't see any benefits in adopting the euro," said Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of the governing Law and Justice Party and brother of the President, Lech Kaczynski. "Euro adoption would lead to lower exports, lower national income and higher unemployment." People in other new Member States agree: Laszlo Halpern, an economist at the Hungarian academy of sciences in Budapest, has said, "To think of the euro as a driving force for any reform is a thought that has proved to be rather na‹ve."
* * * * * *
A study by Friends of the Earth claims that some of the new EU member states are in such a rush to secure EU subsidies that building projects worth more than ś4 billion could end up destroying the environment or harming communities as controls are by-passed. The report notes that, because of EU rules, the new member states must use their allocated cash quickly or risk losing it.